I’m very interested to see how the next 20+ months pan out. I listened to his announcement at the closure of his show today, and was happy to hear this, even though I already figured he would go for it.
Puskarasays
Jesus Tap-Dancin Christ that was better than I ever imagined it would be.
Lucky MN folks. We are stuck with Bob Casey here. Damn did it hurt voting for that asshole…
I am so moving back to Minnesota! I’m going to apply to the U of M by the end of March… Why did I ever leave?
MJ Memphissays
Excellent substance and excellent delivery- he sounds a hell of a lot more statesmanlike than the usual run of used car salesmen and ambulance chasers we normally see in the Senate.
Paguroideasays
Go, Al, Go!!!! He’s great!
Georgesays
Wow, that’s great, a human being running for the Senate!
Strange. The embedded youtube video was broken inside the feed via Google Reader. Firefox 2.0.0.1 asked me to install a missing plugin then couldn’t find t. But it works fine here.
Christian Burnhamsays
OT
Just saw this video on Olbermann. Tell me that’s not P. Z. making an appearance about half-way through.
Geralsays
MN is really lucky, personally I love the two senators MI has but Al Franken? I’d like to see him in debates.
Make sure when they start the primaries start linking his stuff.
David Livesaysays
Lucky MN folks. We are stuck with Bob Casey here. Damn did it hurt voting for that asshole…
But it was worth it to get rid of that self-righteous, gay-bashing douchebag, Santorum. It was a hold-your-nose-and-vote moment.
llewellysays
G. Gordon Liddy’s wikipedia bio says he’s friends with Al Franken.
My grandmother used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show.
I heard a few episodes. Oh Dear FSM on crutches with Parmesan, someone PLEASE tell me that’s vandalism …
David Livesaysays
He’s just way too smart for the Senate. What a waste…
But think what it will do for CSPAN’s ratings. We’ll all be tuning in to watch his monolog- er, I mean, floor speeches.
As a fellow scientist, atheist, and Minnesotan I have to say that there is no chance I’ll be voting for Al, ever. Social programs to give people “boots” are a good idea, which is precisely why the government should stay as far away from it as possible.
Louissays
The dude’s a little too chummy with the Clintons to suit me, but what the hell. If I can be made to believe he has a realistic chance of unseating that wretched toady currently incumbent, I might even vote for him.
Crudely Wrottsays
I am so sick to death of politicians. Especially politicians who embrace a “major party platform.” Doubly so for politicians who embrace the idea that governments’ proper role is to provide citizens’ basic needs for them. Last time I read the Constitution it still narrowly defined the role of government based on the elegantly simple idea that the seat of power is vested in the citizenry. The Feds take care of federal business, states take care of state business and the citizenry takes care of itself. The last thing anybody needs is to be “empowered” by government!
Whatever happened to civics? Anyone sit through that class in public school lately? Whatever happened to good ol’ Yankee ingenuity and self sufficiency and being a good and caring neighbor?
“Where have all the leaders gone? Long time passin’
Where have all the leaders gone? A long, long time ago
Where have all the leaders gone?” Gone to soundbites and make up and
flattering lighting and quote mining and inane editorials and whisker-thin
attention spans and . . . oh, how I hate TeeVee.
Just once before I die I’d like to hear a candidate put the onus back on the electorate where it belongs. If this shit keeps up we’ll soon spend all our waking time standing in line to get our daily dole while listening to party dogma set to up-beat pop music, and smiling vacantly. No offense to the good people of MN or of this wonderful blog but my skept-o-meter pegged out months ago when Franken’s possible candidancy was first announced. He could make Ventura look like, well you fill in the blank, my brain hurts.
If you succeed in electing Franken, I wish you luck; it will be your burden to bear. Of course, I could be wrong.
386sxsays
He sounded sincere. That is always a good start.
It’s nice that he’s concerned about the issues because the issues affect his family too. But why not be concerned about the issues because the issues affect everybody.. Sorry, but he’s already sounding like a politician with the “my family too” trick. Let the pandering begin!
yoshisays
As a born and bred minnesotan, atheist, and gay – i have to say there is absolutely no way that Al will get my vote. I don’t take him seriously and he has too much baggage. Quite frankly no matter how slimy I think Colman is, I have to say he has been a decent representative of Minnesota’s interests. Which is the only thing that important for a Senator.
And for the record I donated the maximum amount and voted for Mondale for Senator against Colman. But he is not running here is he?
Davesays
The last thing anybody needs is to be “empowered” by government!
Thank you for stating that viewpoint more eloquently than I could.
I am so sick to death of politicians. Especially politicians who embrace a “major party platform.” Doubly so for politicians who embrace the idea that governments’ proper role is to provide citizens’ basic needs for them.
I was wondering when the libertarian would show up. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but Franken was trying very hard to distinguish between typical welfare states and the real purpose of social services, which is supposed to be more like a safety net than a handout.
Of course, you realize that you will likely never find a candidate putting the onus of responsibility back on the electorate: it’s a contradiction. People elect officials to get specific things in return, not for the official to turn around and say “Do it your fucking self, you lazy bum.”
BlueIndependentsays
Regarding Al’s baggage, I have no idea what that’s about. What baggage? So he’s a comedian. Far worse has been elected to Congress. Are you telling me he would be less qualified than Mean Jean in Ohio?
He was honest and up front in that video, and gives some of his personal back history, preconceptions be damned. Only Jim Webb sounded as much or more genuine during his campaign than Al is already putting forth.
With regard to Al’s comments about government helping people, he obviously means as a safety net, not as an ATM. Get off the welfare Cadillacs and delinquent mothers with 9 welfare babies syndrome, and look at the program for what it is, not for how a single person or a few abused it.
Al has to prove himself to be sure, but this stuff about baggage doesn’t make any sense to me. He has been loyal to his wife for decades of marriage, and has raised good children with her. How is his career baggage at all? People make it sound like he does mafia hitjobs on the side. He may be no Wellstone, but he’s no Mean Jean either.
craigsays
I used to be a “do it for yourself you lazy bum” type.
Then I found myself disabled and unable to support myself. After being locked away in a psych ward three times to keep me from killing myself due to the shame and guilt, my viewpoint changed.
Bob O'Hsays
Hang on, he must be taking the piss. An American politician talking sense?
I thought the first half was a wonderful statement of what should be an important role of government: lifting people out of poverty, and helping them to better themselves. You only have to look at yesterday’s report on child welfare in developed countries to see the effect of this approach to government. Sane (well, mostly), social democracies at the top.
Bob
Bob Russellsays
I was a Yank I’d vote for him…sadly we don’t get to vote for our senators here in Canada…..
Bill O’Reilly finally found a way to get Al off the radio.
Doubtless he’ll be happy now.
ACsays
As a fellow scientist, atheist, and Minnesotan I have to say that there is no chance I’ll be voting for Al, ever. Social programs to give people “boots” are a good idea, which is precisely why the government should stay as far away from it as possible.
Then please describe, in detail, where I would have gotten most of my college money if not for the Pell Grant and federal student loan programs. I was able to pay off the loan the day I graduated with the money I earned as a co-op student, but I wouldn’t have been able to be in the co-op program if I hadn’t been able to enroll and pay the tuition in the first place.
Actually, it should have read “If I were a Yank…” [/grammar geek]
;^)
David Livesaysays
I used to be a “do it for yourself you lazy bum” type.
Then I found myself disabled and unable to support myself. After being locked away in a psych ward three times to keep me from killing myself due to the shame and guilt, my viewpoint changed.
There, but for the grace of probability, may go you or I.
I wish people would get over this selfish mentality that their taxes are supporting lazy, shiftless bums and realize that what we have in this country is more like an insurance policy where we pay into a fund that can be used to help us if we happen to fall on hard times. It can happen to anybody, just like illness or a car accident, and the effects can be devastating, so it’s just idiotic not to insure ourselves against it.
If there’s anything to be said for how our welfare system works it is that it’s not good enough. As we go through life, most people’s fortunes rise and fall. If poverty acts as a sort of absorbing boundary, then more and more people will end up stuck in it, and we will become collectively less productive. We need a system that can rehabilitate rather than merely sustain people who have fallen on hard times.
Caledoniansays
I used to be a “do it for yourself you lazy bum” type.
Then I found myself disabled and unable to support myself. After being locked away in a psych ward three times to keep me from killing myself due to the shame and guilt, my viewpoint changed.
So, being physically disabled and unable to support yourself == being a lazy bum.
I think you have problems deeper than crippling depression.
Dennissays
Caledonian,
Quit trolling. craig is obviously referring to his bout with mental illness as the reason for the shift in attitude, and not the physical disability.
Jim in STLsays
There, but for the grace of probability, may go you or I.
David Livesay
Exactly. Call me a liberal pinko commie hippie bleeding heart islamofascist-loving Frenchman if you must but if the gubment wants to assure its strength and stability by providing a mechanism that helps assure the general welfare* of its citizens then I’m all for it. Makes good economic sense.
Of course the libertarian is always free to hole up in a compound in the wilderness and whine about how unfair it is that people choose to provide themselves help in time of need by the institutions that they consitute. That’s the beauty of living in a free, strong and secure democracy brought about, in large part, by emplacing strong social security safety nets that ensure the welfare of the people which in turn provides for the welfare of the state.
*see US Constitution.
Davesays
I fail to see why college financial aid MUST come from the government, or why social safety net programs (however you’re defining that) MUST be funded by the government. Clearly we’re not at a point where we could morally pull the plug on government involvement in social welfare, but that’s no reason to continue the trend of growing the government. Uncle Sam has a whole lotta inefficiency built in, and is by nature subject to the whims of the entire nation. Political factors constantly overwhelm even the best intentioned government activity. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what it is some libertarians, at least this one, are talking about. There’s an awful lot of silly hyperbole getting thrown around here:
Of course the libertarian is always free to hole up in a compound in the wilderness and whine about how unfair it is that people choose to provide themselves help in time of need by the institutions that they consitute.
I was wondering when the libertarian would show up. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble,
What? Are you serious? I’m all for disagreeing but is it necessary to use ad hominem attacks and exaggerated claims?
It’s a case of anything the government can do, we can do better for ourselves. Sorry Al, your heart is in the right place but the end doesn’t justify the means.
David Livesaysays
It’s a case of anything the government can do, we can do better for ourselves.
Excuse me, but we are the government. Remember? Democracy? Government of, by and for the people? Remember the first line of our Constitution: “We the people…”?
How is accomplishing something through our government not doing for ourselves?
Jim in STLsays
…is it necessary to use ad hominem attacks…
No. But sometimes it just feels good. Forgive me for indulging my baser side.
That being said, who do you think our government is if not ourselves? We constitute the government and we supply the people power to make the institutions run. Perfect? No. Pretty? No. But to think that the magic power of the private sector is any less prone to failure or screwup through negligence or overt criminalality is preposterous. It’s equally preposterous to think that the individual can somehow do for themselves in times of dire need what their community can do when channeled through the institutions of government (again assuming an implicit social contract between the citizen and a government istituted for and by its citizens – all of its citizens, not just the rich and powerful).
Or, maybe we should put our well being in the hands of religious institutions and faith in a god. Gee, when has that worked out?
Steve_Csays
If Sonny Bono and freaking Tommy Thompson can get into congress so can Al.
Go Al! I hope O’Liely’s head explodes when Al gets elected.
I fail to see why college financial aid MUST come from the government, or why social safety net programs (however you’re defining that) MUST be funded by the government. Clearly we’re not at a point where we could morally pull the plug on government involvement in social welfare, but that’s no reason to continue the trend of growing the government.
Huh? Where did anyone say government MUST fund these things? There are certainly a number of things many people think government SHOULD do, such as making college education more accessible. How about presenting an argument against that position, rather than the straw man you’ve put forward?
Also, I haven’t checked the numbers recently myself, but I’d be willing to bet college financial aid hasn’t been a significant source of recent government growth (I’m pretty sure it’s remained more or less stagnant); I have no idea about the social welfare side, though.
Rey Foxsays
Hell, he ought to run for president. I bet he could do his own damn blogging.
I fail to see why college financial aid MUST come from the government
It comes from the government because the private sector wasn’t stepping up to the plate and “we the people” decided to take matters into our own hands so that education would be more accessible.
And what do you know … it works – and pretty well. Some people abuse Pell grants, but IMO a little abuse is a small price to pay for getting smart people who otherwise couldn’t afford it into college.
It’s a case of anything the government can do, we can do better for ourselves.
Are you advocating anarchy here? Because it sure sounds that way.
David Livesaysays
If Sonny Bono and freaking Tommy Thompson can get into congress so can Al.
And let’s not forget “The Governator” and Reagan in the gubernatorial arena.
But these are all Republicans. Is there a precedent for a successful celebrity Democratic candidate for major public office? I know there must be, but I’m drawing a blank.
Actually, Cyce, PZ, I think I blogged this before either of you. So there.
Dave: Respectfully, I think insisting that government be more efficient and that it be accountable is a better solution than not funding both education and social programs. Failure to do this is handing our future over to the churches, to “market force” society (been there, done that, it was called the Middle Ages) or to just drop the ball entirely. Where is it written, by what fundamental code or requirement of nature or humanity, that we can’t do what we need to do and pay what we need to pay?
The “no on my tax dollar” mantra is getting old.
Stevesays
i have to say there is absolutely no way that Al will get my vote. I don’t take him seriously and he has too much baggage.
But…he’s good enough…he’s smart enough…and doggone it, people like him!
Steve_Csays
My bad. Tommy Thompson is some kind of coach, no?
What did Clint Eastwood run as?
Ichthyicsays
What did Clint Eastwood run as?
he was mayor of Carmel, CA (near Monterey) for a time.
past that…
?
I don’t recall him ever making a run for state congressional office.
anyone else?
Jasonsays
I wish people would get over this selfish mentality that their taxes are supporting lazy, shiftless bums and realize that what we have in this country is more like an insurance policy where we pay into a fund that can be used to help us if we happen to fall on hard times. It can happen to anybody, just like illness or a car accident, and the effects can be devastating, so it’s just idiotic not to insure ourselves against it.
Whether it’s a good idea to have insurance against a certain type of risk is a separate question from whether it’s a good idea to provide that insurance through the government. For most citizens, the government does not provide health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, or car insurance. Even for risks for which the government does provide insurance, its role is generally quite limited. For example, Social Security is intended only to protect people against the risk of poverty after retirement or in case of disability, rather than to provide sufficient income for a middle-class lifestyle (that’s what private companies providing long term disability insurance, 401k’s, IRAs, etc. are for).
Caledoniansays
Quit trolling. craig is obviously referring to his bout with mental illness as the reason for the shift in attitude, and not the physical disability.
Wow. Complete and utter comprehension failure on your part. I don’t see that every day.
Caledoniansays
And what do you know … it works – and pretty well. Some people abuse Pell grants, but IMO a little abuse is a small price to pay for getting smart people who otherwise couldn’t afford it into college.
What’s the use of putting so many people through college?
David Livesaysays
My bad. Tommy Thompson is some kind of coach, no?
The one I’m most familiar with is this guy. I can see why you might confuse the two, as I’m sure you’ll recognize him instantly.
I probably only remember who Fred Thompson is because my wife is a Law & Order addict. I like it too, but I thought Steven Hill was a better DA.
David Livesaysays
What’s the use of putting so many people through college?
Keeps guys like PZ employed. :-)
Ichthyicsays
For most citizens, the government does not provide health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, or car insurance.
or flood insurance.
just ask the former citizens of New Orleans.
oh, btw, evidently even the conservatives currently in office disagree about the value of government providing at least assistance with health insurance, if not providing it outright.
see:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
GWB
and of course, when you say “citizens” you need to limit that, as many countries DO provide these services for their citizens already.
seems to work for them.
Ichthyicsays
What’s the use of putting so many people through college?
hmm.
i smell bait here.
David Livesaysays
What did Clint Eastwood run as?
he was mayor of Carmel, CA (near Monterey) for a time.
past that…
?
I don’t recall him ever making a run for state congressional office.
anyone else?
He never ran for office again. He didn’t like having to make so many petty little decisions.
Incidentally, Clint is a registered Republican, but he’s pro-choice, pro-environment, supports gay marriage and opposes the war on Iraq. His political philosophy is basically libertarian, but not the lathering anti-government variety.
Caledoniansays
hmm.
i smell bait here.
Actually, no. Like so many things, there’s a diminishing-returns problem associated with sending people to college. We could send ever single citizen, and get very little benefit out of it.
Jasonsays
Ichthyic,
Many conservatives believe that the role of the government in providing health insurance should be expanded to some degree, but I doubt many of them support single-payer publicly-funded universal health care, as in the health care systems of Britain and Canada. I don’t think such a scheme is remotely politically feasible in the United States.
I don’t know of any countries in which the government provides health, life, home, and auto insurance for its citizens.
Caledoniansays
Many conservatives believe that the role of the government in providing health insurance should be expanded to some degree,
There are very few politicians of any affiliation that don’t wish to expand the role of the government in practically everything.
David Livesaysays
For most citizens, the government does not provide health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, or car insurance.
No, it doesn’t, but it mandates car insurance, then it hands you over to the insurance industry. That’s fair. How’d you like to have to pay for welfare what you pay for car insurance? Personally, I carry most of my insurance with mutual insurance comapnies, which are about as close as you can come to collectives. I probably pay a lot less for my insurance, but unfortunately they are very selective about who they accept.
I’d much rather the government would provide all forms of insurance. They don’t have to hand money over to investors like the non-mutual insurance companies do. Why do you think it makes things so much better if a bunch of rich bankers and investors are taking a cut every time you pay a premium? You can’t vote the board of directors of out of office for handing their CEO a $250 million golden parachute. All you can do is “vote with your feet” by switching to a competitor, but they’re just as bad.
Caledoniansays
No, it doesn’t, but it mandates car insurance, then it hands you over to the insurance industry.
Wrong.
IF you want a driver’s license, you must EITHER get insurance, OR have a certain amount of money on hand.
Ichthyicsays
Many conservatives believe that the role of the government in providing health insurance should be expanded to some degree
methinks you are understanding the current trends based on personal prejudice.
Yoou can argue the reasons behind the recently expanded interest in this subject on the conservative side, but you can’t argue that it is just a debate about “some degree”; both Arnie’s and Chimpy’s plans are rather far more involved than that.
Indeed, it would be worth discussing at some point exactly what has caused the apparently large philosophical shift on this particular issue within the Repubs.
Arnie went whole hog with his plan, just days before Chimpy announced his own.
interesting.
Ichthyicsays
er, change “understanding” to “underestimating”.
Ichthyicsays
IF you want a driver’s license, you must EITHER get insurance, OR have a certain amount of money on hand.
could you explain that?
no amount of money can get me a valid DL in CA without proof of insurance, for example.
David Livesaysays
I doubt many of them support single-payer publicly-funded universal health care, as in the health care systems of Britain and Canada. I don’t think such a scheme is remotely politically feasible in the United States.
That’s probably going to change soon. Have you noticed how GM, Ford and now Chrysler have been laying off thousands of US employees? That’s because they can’t afford health insurance. This is what Hillary Clinton tried to prevent way back when, remember? She didn’t pull it off, in spite of support from the auto industry.
Now things have gotten worse. The kind of plans Hillary was trying to implement won’t work now. We’ve missed the boat. We’re either going to have to do something more drastic or the big three are going to go belly up, and that’s just for starters.
Caledoniansays
no amount of money can get me a valid DL in CA without proof of insurance, for example.
Really… perhaps it’s different in different states. In PA, we must either have proof of insurance, or prove that we have a certain amount of money set aside in case you need we’re culpable for injury or property damage. I don’t remember how much it is, precisely.
David Livesaysays
Wrong.
IF you want a driver’s license, you must EITHER get insurance, OR have a certain amount of money on hand.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me! I should have said, “but it mandates car insurance, then it hands you over to the insurance industry–unless you’re rich. Now that’s fair!”
Ichthyicsays
Now things have gotten worse. The kind of plans Hillary was trying to implement won’t work now. We’ve missed the boat. We’re either going to have to do something more drastic or the big three are going to go belly up, and that’s just for starters.
I tend to agree that things have shifted such that what the Clintons proposed back in the early 90’s likely is completely unworkable at this point.
However, wouldn’t this be an excellent thread to examine the recent proposals to see if they in any way would at least staunch the blood flow?
has anybody even looked at the details yet?
I’ve only skimmed Arnie’s proposal, and there are some interesting economic arguments, but I haven’t delved much into the details yet.
I guess the first question would be:
Is this move by the Repubs simply damage control and misdirection? Or is the something substantial to it that actually has a legitimate chance to make a difference?
Jasonsays
methinks you are understanding the current trends based on personal prejudice.
Methinks you’re wrong.
Yoou can argue the reasons behind the recently expanded interest in this subject on the conservative side, but you can’t argue that it is just a debate about “some degree”; both Arnie’s and Chimpy’s plans are rather far more involved than that.
Both of their plans call for only a limited expansion of the government’s role in providing health insurance.
Indeed, it would be worth discussing at some point exactly what has caused the apparently large philosophical shift on this particular issue within the Repubs.
I don’t see any large philosophical shift by the Republicans on the issue, just a modest increase in their interest in moving towards universal coverage through increased health insurance subsidies for the poor and expanded mandates on private health insurers. They seem as strongly opposed to major structural reform, and especially to a national single-payer system, as ever. Single-payer is basically just a pipe-dream of the far left at this point.
Ichthyicsays
Really… perhaps it’s different in different states. In PA, we must either have proof of insurance, or prove that we have a certain amount of money set aside in case you need we’re culpable for injury or property damage. I don’t remember how much it is, precisely.
interesting. How much money is considered sufficient? Do they use standard insurance tables to calculate that?
on the surface, I think I prefer PA’s method to CA’s. I also think that the MUCH larger population in CA might have something to do with why it is the way it is.
I can see possibilities for a court case every time someone pays out of pocket for a liability accident in PA. do they have a way around that?
Caledoniansays
I really don’t know. I have insurance, so I never bothered looking up the details of the alternative. It’s a fairly large chunk of change, though.
Jasonsays
That’s probably going to change soon.
That doesn’t seem likely. In the two states where single-payer universal health care was put to the voters (California and Oregon), it lost by a margin of 3 to 1. If single-payer health care loses by 50 points in two of the bluest states in the country, its chances of being passed at the national level are infinitesimal, especially given the inevitable opposition from the health insurance and provider industries.
Have you noticed how GM, Ford and now Chrysler have been laying off thousands of US employees? That’s because they can’t afford health insurance.
I think that probably has more to do with the fact that their products tend to be inferior to the ones produced by their Asian and European competitors.
The kind of plans Hillary was trying to implement won’t work now.
Why not? How do you know?
David Livesaysays
Is this move by the Repubs simply damage control and misdirection?
Bingo.
David Livesaysays
Why not? How do you know?
Why is the sky blue? What happens when we die?
David Livesaysays
I think that probably has more to do with the fact that their products tend to be inferior to the ones produced by their Asian and European competitors.
Now there’s a novel insight. I don’t think that’s occurred to anyone yet. Maybe you should notify the people at GM, Ford and Chrysler so they can do something about it.
What’s the use of putting so many people through college?
How many decent jobs are out there for someone with *only* a high-school education?
And before you say “There’s plenty of jobs out there for people without a bachelor’s”, remember that most students getting degrees or diplomas at two-year technical colleges – your welders. your RN and LPN nurses, your HVAC techs, your lab techs, your mechanics – are only able to go due to some sort of federal or state aid.
Crudely Wrottsays
Heliologue said:
I was wondering when the libertarian would show up. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but Franken was trying very hard to distinguish between typical welfare states and the real purpose of social services, which is supposed to be more like a safety net than a handout.
Of course, you realize that you will likely never find a candidate putting the onus of responsibility back on the electorate: it’s a contradiction. People elect officials to get specific things in return, not for the official to turn around and say “Do it your fucking self, you lazy bum.”
I am all for social services that serve real needs, not for blanket coverage for the healthy and able. Our social services have lost any forward thinking vision they might have once had through the machinations of the “Political-Media Compex”, apologies to Ike. To respond to your comments I say:
First of all, I am not a libertarian, though some of my opinions are mirrored by their philosophy of governance. I also have opinions that are mirrored by the two “popular” parties. If I took the time to cross reference all my opinions I’m sure there would be traces of just about any approach to the relationship between the governors and the governed that you or I could think of.
Second, there is a perfectly just (by virtue of necessity) purpose for social services. That purpose is to ensure that the “common welfare” is available for all citizens. The bogieman under the bed here is that it has become too easy to merely claim you need these services and many of us are persuaded that it is a “right” to insist on government sponsored welfare. It is easy to see that this greases the skids for those who could otherwise cope; either through increased personal effort and/or the assistance of family, friends and local charity but choose to go to the state instead. Note the word “choose”.
Third, I would say that the reason that politicians don’t put the onus of responsibility on the electorate is twofold: people steeped in the welfare state mentality would squeal like a pig caught under a gate and the press would have a field day with their protestations. The result could only be bad for such a bold poll. Furthermore, there is no inherent contradiction here. Ostensibly we elect people to lead, not to prepare a smooth path before us. This is what I see as the prime principle embodied by power being vested in the general population; we don’t need to wait to be told because we are assumed to already know how to care for ourselves and our communities. We know this, presumably, through heritage and education and upbringing. I fear that this knowledge and sense of responsibility is seriously eroded in modern America. One thing you can count on in terms of any population is that there are always some who will not help themselves, let alone their neighbors come hell or high water. This knowledge was passed to me and my schoolmates in the Civics class that I mentioned in my previous post. My parents instilled self reliance and compassion for others in me at a young age. Since I became “politically aware” some forty years ago I have witnessed a slow replacement of civic values by entitlement values. In my opinion this is bad for America, and by virtue of her global influence, bad for all people.
I in no way intended to suggest, nor would I countenance any elected or appointed official implying that the citizenry should “Do it your fucking self, you lazy bum.” Not belaboring the fact that there is a surfeit of lazy bums among us, such an attitude is not characteristic of, or tolerable in a leader. There is that word again, “leader”. My contention in these comments is that we have begun to see what happens to the populace when the tasks of basic maintenance are gradually handed over to “agencies” and “departments” and “offices” operated under government auspices. If these agencies, et cetera, were properly configured they would busy themselves with providing the tools and environments required to allow us to maintain a healthy nation. Since they are too myopic for that task they have taken to providing basic commodities, thus undercutting the will of individuals to be self motivated and disciplined. I see this as unfortunate and destructive to the spirit of this republic.
In no way do I imply that those with real, demonstrable needs arising out of the vagaries of life and luck should be excluded. Indeed, most welfare programs began as services for the sick and broken members of our society. In my opinion, this group does not include those who became sick or broken as a result of their own actions or decisions. The simple fact is that lack of strong leadership at all levels of government, coupled with the seduction of media exposure (by nature restricted to mere gloss and mass appeal) has created the popular opinion that we have a right to supported by the state (read “taxpayers”) in direct opposition to the notion of a nation of strong, confident, able, charitable and civic-minded citizens.
Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. I am not self righteous and I don’t live in a bubble. I took my American History and Social Studies quite seriously, have been a news junkie since age nine and I have pretty good powers of observation, thank you.
Caledoniansays
When people can get more of what they want simply by demanding it, they neither use their resources wisely nor restrain the appetite for more.
This is why politicians will always move towards more taxation, more governmental control, and more governmental power – a tendency that is supposed to be restrained, not encouraged, by the populace.
It’s also why military drafts have been such disasters, both in maintaining individual liberties and providing for the common defense.
Jasonsays
Now there’s a novel insight. I don’t think that’s occurred to anyone yet.
Well, make up your mind. You just said it was the cost of health insurance.
Ichthyicsays
Methinks you’re wrong.
based on what? the rest of your post where you postulate what the plans are about without really knowing?
I’m going to ignore your speculation, ‘k?
thanks for playing.
If you’re serious, perhaps you would like to help me dissect Arnies’s plan, for example?
you obviously haven’t actually looked at these plans in detail yet yourself, and apparently far less than I have, and even that was cursory.
Seriously, I’m interested in seeing what the real potential of these plans are, for anyone who actually IS interested in looking at the details of the plans themselves.
oh, but for something to do in case you don’t feel like doing the actual legwork into the repubs latest foray, maybe you could take a stab at answering the question i posed earlier, which is, unlike the rest, a request for a subjective opinion:
Is this just spin, or are these plans really an attempt to create a realistic health care plan?
You can at least answer that, yes?
David:
I know there is a large data set to support your answer, but there is a reality here, as was outlined above, and there is some serious hemorrhaging that needs to be stemmed.
Are you really sure that the current plans are nothing more than spin?
I’ll go ahead and post some of the economic arguments I’ve seen supporting Arnie’s current plan tommorrow, which while not completely on target, are interesting nonetheless.
health care being one of the largest voter issues for the next election, and this being a thread about elections (even if it is about good ol Al), I figure it would be a good thing to debate.
answering my own question… I’m not so sure this is all just spin (though some of it most certainly is).
David Livesaysays
Well, make up your mind. You just said it was the cost of health insurance.
It is the cost of health insurance. The point of my sarcastic comment is that the quality issue was raised about 30 years ago, and the American Automakers have put enormous energy and resources into addressing it, and they have succeeded, so the quality complaint is just old news.
SteveFsays
I like Al and I’d vote for him (were I American) but that was a load of corny old crap! If anyone tried that routine in the UK, people would assume that their comedy routine was still continuing. I guess it just goes to show what a difference there is between electoral styles across the pond.
Carliesays
I thought it was a little too tv-aw shucks-sincere, but I’m glad that someone is at least saying those things (and that it’s him). However, what I really liked was the cute way he says “gub’mint”.
I like Al and I’d vote for him (were I American) but that was a load of corny old crap!
I can’t argue it’s not corny, but if by “crap” you mean artificial or insincere, I beg to disagree. I’ve been listening to Franken’s show religiously (pardon the expression) for most of its run, and I’ve read all of his political books (listened to ’em, actually; they make great audiobooks), and I’m convinced his commitment to family, and to government as an agent of opportunity for “regular” people, is deeply heartfelt.
Schmalzy, yes; BS, absolutely not. IMHO, of course.
SteveFsays
No, I think he was being sincere and he appears to be a genuinely good guy. It just amused me to note the contrast in styles between the US and UK; you’d be laughed out of town for that kind of schmaltz over here.
Jasonsays
Ichthyic,
based on what?
Based on the evidence of increased interest by Republicans in modest health care reform.
If you’re serious, perhaps you would like to help me dissect Arnies’s plan, for example?
As I said, Arnie’s plan proposes only modest changes in California’s health care system to move towards universal coverage, not any kind of major structural reform, let alone the replacement of private health insurance with a single-payer public insurance system. The major features of the plan are increased health insurance subsidies for the poor, and expanded mandates on health insurers and individuals.
Is this just spin, or are these plans really an attempt to create a realistic health care plan?
They’re an attempt to provide health insurance for more people by building on the existing health insurance and delivery systems. They’re not any kind of fundamental reform of the current system.
Troublesome Frogsays
Actually, no. Like so many things, there’s a diminishing-returns problem associated with sending people to college. We could send ever single citizen, and get very little benefit out of it.
I can see your point, so I’ll assume that you’re correct for the sake of argument. Not everybody should go to college. The next question is, how do we decide who goes to college? I think that ideally, it should be based on aptitude and individual choice. I don’t think that the ability to pay is a healthy rationing mechanism for education. If we can reduce the impact of the “can’t pay for it” angle, we’ll get more of the people who should be going to college into college rather than selecting partially on a totally irrelevant variable.
Jim in STLsays
Actually, no. Like so many things, there’s a diminishing-returns problem associated with sending people to college. We could send ever single citizen, and get very little benefit out of it.
This comment is diversionary and absurd and has nothing to do with funding education.
Caledoniansays
I find it peculiar that so many of you adhere to the belief that order must be imposed by a centralized authority. Whatever happened to permitting it to arise from the collective undirected actions of the many?
What do you mean, ‘how do we decide who goes to college’? We don’t. And neither you nor I do.
Jim in STLsays
…order…arise from the collective undirected actions of the many…
So, the discussion has moved from ordering human social structures to Brownian motion. Very interesting.
Jim in STLsays
Incidentally, although I haven’t heard him explicitely say so, I think that Al is a likely supporter of Browninan motion.
Wow he sounded so honest. How did he do that? I wanna vote for him and I’m not even from minnesota. Hell I’m not even American.
Colugosays
“Whatever happened to permitting it to arise from the collective undirected actions of the many?”
That’s related to von Mises’ and Hayek’s critiques of socialist command economies, which were broadly correct. However, Hayek believed that a certain level of progressive taxation, redistribution, and government regulation within a fundamentally market economy were acceptable. Hayek is also considered a pioneer of connectionism and neural networks, another kind of emergent order.
Contemporary Social Democratic parties have assimilated a great deal of similar critiques of planned economies and in recent years have accepted greater liberalization (marketization) of national economies. (My own view is that as mixed economies evolve due to macro forces like technology and globalization, the optimal proportions of and relationships between government participation and private market activity will change.)
Troublesome Frogsays
I find it peculiar that so many of you adhere to the belief that order must be imposed by a centralized authority. Whatever happened to permitting it to arise from the collective undirected actions of the many?
I don’t think that’s it at all. Most of us are happy to allow markets and the undirected actions of the many to run just about everything. I don’t think there’s any philosophical opposition to that idea here. The difference is that many of us are pragmatic enough to realize that there are cases when some central planning can improve the outcome. Markets don’t always produce ideal results, and while it may cause a serious emotional reaction in some, government intervention can sometimes improve those results.
What do you mean, ‘how do we decide who goes to college’? We don’t. And neither you nor I do.
Ah. I forgot who I was addressing. I’ll make sure to check that this post is pedantically unambiguous. What I mean is that we (as a society–all of us) let a combination of aptitude, individual choice, and money decide who goes to college. I am arguing that while money is usually a very good rationing mechanism, it’s not necessarily a good one for higher education.
You pointed out yourself that not everybody should go to college. I’m merely pointing out that if we take that as fact, society should want those who are most apt and able to make use of education to get it. Using “ability to pay” as an important factor in deciding who goes to college simply isn’t going to get the desired result.
Caledoniansays
What I mean is that we (as a society–all of us) let a combination of aptitude, individual choice, and money decide who goes to college.
It’s never crossed your mind that society doesn’t decide some things, has it?
Troublesome Frogsays
It’s never crossed your mind that society doesn’t decide some things, has it?
Clearly my pedantry meter was broken when I wrote my last post. I’m really, really sorry. Do you disagree that the deciding main factors for going to college are aptitude, individual choice, and ability to pay for it? Do you disagree that American society appears to be OK with this and allow it to be the way it is? Let’s see… how else can I phrase this to get past the Caledonian ambiguity filter?
* The net result of our generally capitalistic society is that money is used as a rationing mechanism for scarce resources and, as such, it’s used that way for education.
* When the market decides something and society doesn’t overturn the result with a law, society can be said to have “decided” that the outcome is acceptable. Do read this one twice.
* [Caution: intuitively obvious but not necessarily primary definition coming up!] Society can “decide” something the same way markets are said to “decide” things–not consciously but rather by collective action affecting the outcome.
* American society accepts the outcomes of the market in most cases, including the selection of who goes to college. Because if it didn’t, it would have enacted laws to change the results.
Oh wait! There are some laws regulating some college admissions, so surely that will invalidate my point and make you miss the point of the post. Maybe I should strike the last bullet from the record. My basic point is this: Allowing “ability to pay” be a large deciding factor in who gets limited education resources is not socially optimal, and no matter how much it may make objectivists cry, it’s not totally batshit insane to suggest that we introduce money into the equation to produce a more socially useful result. If you do decide to dump my entire post based on your interpretation of English as some sort of context-free grammar, please do consider that last point. It’s all I’m trying to get across.
Interesting, though I still find it disinheartening that Franken and so many others think they can and should “shake up” the Democratic party, when polls I have read about would support a genuinely social democratic party in the US if such could be organized. For example, there is political will for universal healthcare, at least if the population is meant. The plutocratic elites in both mainstream parties don’t support it, but that’s not surprising, is it?
Go Al! He’ll be a great Senator.
By the way PZ, looks like I beat you to the punch on this one :-P
I’m very interested to see how the next 20+ months pan out. I listened to his announcement at the closure of his show today, and was happy to hear this, even though I already figured he would go for it.
Jesus Tap-Dancin Christ that was better than I ever imagined it would be.
Lucky MN folks. We are stuck with Bob Casey here. Damn did it hurt voting for that asshole…
I am so moving back to Minnesota! I’m going to apply to the U of M by the end of March… Why did I ever leave?
Excellent substance and excellent delivery- he sounds a hell of a lot more statesmanlike than the usual run of used car salesmen and ambulance chasers we normally see in the Senate.
Go, Al, Go!!!! He’s great!
Wow, that’s great, a human being running for the Senate!
He had me at “Hi”.
Wait, he didn’t end with god bless.
Strange. The embedded youtube video was broken inside the feed via Google Reader. Firefox 2.0.0.1 asked me to install a missing plugin then couldn’t find t. But it works fine here.
OT
Just saw this video on Olbermann. Tell me that’s not P. Z. making an appearance about half-way through.
MN is really lucky, personally I love the two senators MI has but Al Franken? I’d like to see him in debates.
Make sure when they start the primaries start linking his stuff.
But it was worth it to get rid of that self-righteous, gay-bashing douchebag, Santorum. It was a hold-your-nose-and-vote moment.
G. Gordon Liddy’s wikipedia bio says he’s friends with Al Franken.
My grandmother used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show.
I heard a few episodes.
Oh Dear FSM on crutches with Parmesan, someone PLEASE tell me that’s vandalism …
He’s just way too smart for the Senate. What a waste…
But think what it will do for CSPAN’s ratings. We’ll all be tuning in to watch his monolog- er, I mean, floor speeches.
He sounded sincere. That is always a good start.
As a fellow scientist, atheist, and Minnesotan I have to say that there is no chance I’ll be voting for Al, ever. Social programs to give people “boots” are a good idea, which is precisely why the government should stay as far away from it as possible.
The dude’s a little too chummy with the Clintons to suit me, but what the hell. If I can be made to believe he has a realistic chance of unseating that wretched toady currently incumbent, I might even vote for him.
I am so sick to death of politicians. Especially politicians who embrace a “major party platform.” Doubly so for politicians who embrace the idea that governments’ proper role is to provide citizens’ basic needs for them. Last time I read the Constitution it still narrowly defined the role of government based on the elegantly simple idea that the seat of power is vested in the citizenry. The Feds take care of federal business, states take care of state business and the citizenry takes care of itself. The last thing anybody needs is to be “empowered” by government!
Whatever happened to civics? Anyone sit through that class in public school lately? Whatever happened to good ol’ Yankee ingenuity and self sufficiency and being a good and caring neighbor?
“Where have all the leaders gone? Long time passin’
Where have all the leaders gone? A long, long time ago
Where have all the leaders gone?” Gone to soundbites and make up and
flattering lighting and quote mining and inane editorials and whisker-thin
attention spans and . . . oh, how I hate TeeVee.
Just once before I die I’d like to hear a candidate put the onus back on the electorate where it belongs. If this shit keeps up we’ll soon spend all our waking time standing in line to get our daily dole while listening to party dogma set to up-beat pop music, and smiling vacantly. No offense to the good people of MN or of this wonderful blog but my skept-o-meter pegged out months ago when Franken’s possible candidancy was first announced. He could make Ventura look like, well you fill in the blank, my brain hurts.
If you succeed in electing Franken, I wish you luck; it will be your burden to bear. Of course, I could be wrong.
He sounded sincere. That is always a good start.
It’s nice that he’s concerned about the issues because the issues affect his family too. But why not be concerned about the issues because the issues affect everybody.. Sorry, but he’s already sounding like a politician with the “my family too” trick. Let the pandering begin!
As a born and bred minnesotan, atheist, and gay – i have to say there is absolutely no way that Al will get my vote. I don’t take him seriously and he has too much baggage. Quite frankly no matter how slimy I think Colman is, I have to say he has been a decent representative of Minnesota’s interests. Which is the only thing that important for a Senator.
And for the record I donated the maximum amount and voted for Mondale for Senator against Colman. But he is not running here is he?
The last thing anybody needs is to be “empowered” by government!
Thank you for stating that viewpoint more eloquently than I could.
I was wondering when the libertarian would show up. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but Franken was trying very hard to distinguish between typical welfare states and the real purpose of social services, which is supposed to be more like a safety net than a handout.
Of course, you realize that you will likely never find a candidate putting the onus of responsibility back on the electorate: it’s a contradiction. People elect officials to get specific things in return, not for the official to turn around and say “Do it your fucking self, you lazy bum.”
Regarding Al’s baggage, I have no idea what that’s about. What baggage? So he’s a comedian. Far worse has been elected to Congress. Are you telling me he would be less qualified than Mean Jean in Ohio?
He was honest and up front in that video, and gives some of his personal back history, preconceptions be damned. Only Jim Webb sounded as much or more genuine during his campaign than Al is already putting forth.
With regard to Al’s comments about government helping people, he obviously means as a safety net, not as an ATM. Get off the welfare Cadillacs and delinquent mothers with 9 welfare babies syndrome, and look at the program for what it is, not for how a single person or a few abused it.
Al has to prove himself to be sure, but this stuff about baggage doesn’t make any sense to me. He has been loyal to his wife for decades of marriage, and has raised good children with her. How is his career baggage at all? People make it sound like he does mafia hitjobs on the side. He may be no Wellstone, but he’s no Mean Jean either.
I used to be a “do it for yourself you lazy bum” type.
Then I found myself disabled and unable to support myself. After being locked away in a psych ward three times to keep me from killing myself due to the shame and guilt, my viewpoint changed.
Hang on, he must be taking the piss. An American politician talking sense?
I thought the first half was a wonderful statement of what should be an important role of government: lifting people out of poverty, and helping them to better themselves. You only have to look at yesterday’s report on child welfare in developed countries to see the effect of this approach to government. Sane (well, mostly), social democracies at the top.
Bob
I was a Yank I’d vote for him…sadly we don’t get to vote for our senators here in Canada…..
Dang! That should have read, “IF I was a Yank….”
PS – great website…..
Bill O’Reilly finally found a way to get Al off the radio.
Doubtless he’ll be happy now.
Bill O’Reilly finally found a way to get Al off the radio.
Doubtless he’ll be happy now.
Then please describe, in detail, where I would have gotten most of my college money if not for the Pell Grant and federal student loan programs. I was able to pay off the loan the day I graduated with the money I earned as a co-op student, but I wouldn’t have been able to be in the co-op program if I hadn’t been able to enroll and pay the tuition in the first place.
Get it?
Actually, it should have read “If I were a Yank…” [/grammar geek]
;^)
There, but for the grace of probability, may go you or I.
I wish people would get over this selfish mentality that their taxes are supporting lazy, shiftless bums and realize that what we have in this country is more like an insurance policy where we pay into a fund that can be used to help us if we happen to fall on hard times. It can happen to anybody, just like illness or a car accident, and the effects can be devastating, so it’s just idiotic not to insure ourselves against it.
If there’s anything to be said for how our welfare system works it is that it’s not good enough. As we go through life, most people’s fortunes rise and fall. If poverty acts as a sort of absorbing boundary, then more and more people will end up stuck in it, and we will become collectively less productive. We need a system that can rehabilitate rather than merely sustain people who have fallen on hard times.
So, being physically disabled and unable to support yourself == being a lazy bum.
I think you have problems deeper than crippling depression.
Caledonian,
Quit trolling. craig is obviously referring to his bout with mental illness as the reason for the shift in attitude, and not the physical disability.
There, but for the grace of probability, may go you or I.
David Livesay
Exactly. Call me a liberal pinko commie hippie bleeding heart islamofascist-loving Frenchman if you must but if the gubment wants to assure its strength and stability by providing a mechanism that helps assure the general welfare* of its citizens then I’m all for it. Makes good economic sense.
Of course the libertarian is always free to hole up in a compound in the wilderness and whine about how unfair it is that people choose to provide themselves help in time of need by the institutions that they consitute. That’s the beauty of living in a free, strong and secure democracy brought about, in large part, by emplacing strong social security safety nets that ensure the welfare of the people which in turn provides for the welfare of the state.
*see US Constitution.
I fail to see why college financial aid MUST come from the government, or why social safety net programs (however you’re defining that) MUST be funded by the government. Clearly we’re not at a point where we could morally pull the plug on government involvement in social welfare, but that’s no reason to continue the trend of growing the government. Uncle Sam has a whole lotta inefficiency built in, and is by nature subject to the whims of the entire nation. Political factors constantly overwhelm even the best intentioned government activity. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what it is some libertarians, at least this one, are talking about. There’s an awful lot of silly hyperbole getting thrown around here:
Of course the libertarian is always free to hole up in a compound in the wilderness and whine about how unfair it is that people choose to provide themselves help in time of need by the institutions that they consitute.
I was wondering when the libertarian would show up. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble,
What? Are you serious? I’m all for disagreeing but is it necessary to use ad hominem attacks and exaggerated claims?
It’s a case of anything the government can do, we can do better for ourselves. Sorry Al, your heart is in the right place but the end doesn’t justify the means.
Excuse me, but we are the government. Remember? Democracy? Government of, by and for the people? Remember the first line of our Constitution: “We the people…”?
How is accomplishing something through our government not doing for ourselves?
…is it necessary to use ad hominem attacks…
No. But sometimes it just feels good. Forgive me for indulging my baser side.
That being said, who do you think our government is if not ourselves? We constitute the government and we supply the people power to make the institutions run. Perfect? No. Pretty? No. But to think that the magic power of the private sector is any less prone to failure or screwup through negligence or overt criminalality is preposterous. It’s equally preposterous to think that the individual can somehow do for themselves in times of dire need what their community can do when channeled through the institutions of government (again assuming an implicit social contract between the citizen and a government istituted for and by its citizens – all of its citizens, not just the rich and powerful).
Or, maybe we should put our well being in the hands of religious institutions and faith in a god. Gee, when has that worked out?
If Sonny Bono and freaking Tommy Thompson can get into congress so can Al.
Go Al! I hope O’Liely’s head explodes when Al gets elected.
Huh? Where did anyone say government MUST fund these things? There are certainly a number of things many people think government SHOULD do, such as making college education more accessible. How about presenting an argument against that position, rather than the straw man you’ve put forward?
Also, I haven’t checked the numbers recently myself, but I’d be willing to bet college financial aid hasn’t been a significant source of recent government growth (I’m pretty sure it’s remained more or less stagnant); I have no idea about the social welfare side, though.
Hell, he ought to run for president. I bet he could do his own damn blogging.
It comes from the government because the private sector wasn’t stepping up to the plate and “we the people” decided to take matters into our own hands so that education would be more accessible.
And what do you know … it works – and pretty well. Some people abuse Pell grants, but IMO a little abuse is a small price to pay for getting smart people who otherwise couldn’t afford it into college.
Are you advocating anarchy here? Because it sure sounds that way.
I think you meant to say Fred Thompson.
And let’s not forget “The Governator” and Reagan in the gubernatorial arena.
But these are all Republicans. Is there a precedent for a successful celebrity Democratic candidate for major public office? I know there must be, but I’m drawing a blank.
Actually, Cyce, PZ, I think I blogged this before either of you. So there.
Dave: Respectfully, I think insisting that government be more efficient and that it be accountable is a better solution than not funding both education and social programs. Failure to do this is handing our future over to the churches, to “market force” society (been there, done that, it was called the Middle Ages) or to just drop the ball entirely. Where is it written, by what fundamental code or requirement of nature or humanity, that we can’t do what we need to do and pay what we need to pay?
The “no on my tax dollar” mantra is getting old.
But…he’s good enough…he’s smart enough…and doggone it, people like him!
My bad. Tommy Thompson is some kind of coach, no?
What did Clint Eastwood run as?
What did Clint Eastwood run as?
he was mayor of Carmel, CA (near Monterey) for a time.
past that…
?
I don’t recall him ever making a run for state congressional office.
anyone else?
I wish people would get over this selfish mentality that their taxes are supporting lazy, shiftless bums and realize that what we have in this country is more like an insurance policy where we pay into a fund that can be used to help us if we happen to fall on hard times. It can happen to anybody, just like illness or a car accident, and the effects can be devastating, so it’s just idiotic not to insure ourselves against it.
Whether it’s a good idea to have insurance against a certain type of risk is a separate question from whether it’s a good idea to provide that insurance through the government. For most citizens, the government does not provide health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, or car insurance. Even for risks for which the government does provide insurance, its role is generally quite limited. For example, Social Security is intended only to protect people against the risk of poverty after retirement or in case of disability, rather than to provide sufficient income for a middle-class lifestyle (that’s what private companies providing long term disability insurance, 401k’s, IRAs, etc. are for).
Wow. Complete and utter comprehension failure on your part. I don’t see that every day.
What’s the use of putting so many people through college?
The one I’m most familiar with is this guy. I can see why you might confuse the two, as I’m sure you’ll recognize him instantly.
I probably only remember who Fred Thompson is because my wife is a Law & Order addict. I like it too, but I thought Steven Hill was a better DA.
Keeps guys like PZ employed. :-)
For most citizens, the government does not provide health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, or car insurance.
or flood insurance.
just ask the former citizens of New Orleans.
oh, btw, evidently even the conservatives currently in office disagree about the value of government providing at least assistance with health insurance, if not providing it outright.
see:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
GWB
and of course, when you say “citizens” you need to limit that, as many countries DO provide these services for their citizens already.
seems to work for them.
What’s the use of putting so many people through college?
hmm.
i smell bait here.
He never ran for office again. He didn’t like having to make so many petty little decisions.
Incidentally, Clint is a registered Republican, but he’s pro-choice, pro-environment, supports gay marriage and opposes the war on Iraq. His political philosophy is basically libertarian, but not the lathering anti-government variety.
Actually, no. Like so many things, there’s a diminishing-returns problem associated with sending people to college. We could send ever single citizen, and get very little benefit out of it.
Ichthyic,
Many conservatives believe that the role of the government in providing health insurance should be expanded to some degree, but I doubt many of them support single-payer publicly-funded universal health care, as in the health care systems of Britain and Canada. I don’t think such a scheme is remotely politically feasible in the United States.
I don’t know of any countries in which the government provides health, life, home, and auto insurance for its citizens.
There are very few politicians of any affiliation that don’t wish to expand the role of the government in practically everything.
No, it doesn’t, but it mandates car insurance, then it hands you over to the insurance industry. That’s fair. How’d you like to have to pay for welfare what you pay for car insurance? Personally, I carry most of my insurance with mutual insurance comapnies, which are about as close as you can come to collectives. I probably pay a lot less for my insurance, but unfortunately they are very selective about who they accept.
I’d much rather the government would provide all forms of insurance. They don’t have to hand money over to investors like the non-mutual insurance companies do. Why do you think it makes things so much better if a bunch of rich bankers and investors are taking a cut every time you pay a premium? You can’t vote the board of directors of out of office for handing their CEO a $250 million golden parachute. All you can do is “vote with your feet” by switching to a competitor, but they’re just as bad.
Wrong.
IF you want a driver’s license, you must EITHER get insurance, OR have a certain amount of money on hand.
Many conservatives believe that the role of the government in providing health insurance should be expanded to some degree
methinks you are understanding the current trends based on personal prejudice.
Yoou can argue the reasons behind the recently expanded interest in this subject on the conservative side, but you can’t argue that it is just a debate about “some degree”; both Arnie’s and Chimpy’s plans are rather far more involved than that.
Indeed, it would be worth discussing at some point exactly what has caused the apparently large philosophical shift on this particular issue within the Repubs.
Arnie went whole hog with his plan, just days before Chimpy announced his own.
interesting.
er, change “understanding” to “underestimating”.
IF you want a driver’s license, you must EITHER get insurance, OR have a certain amount of money on hand.
could you explain that?
no amount of money can get me a valid DL in CA without proof of insurance, for example.
That’s probably going to change soon. Have you noticed how GM, Ford and now Chrysler have been laying off thousands of US employees? That’s because they can’t afford health insurance. This is what Hillary Clinton tried to prevent way back when, remember? She didn’t pull it off, in spite of support from the auto industry.
Now things have gotten worse. The kind of plans Hillary was trying to implement won’t work now. We’ve missed the boat. We’re either going to have to do something more drastic or the big three are going to go belly up, and that’s just for starters.
Really… perhaps it’s different in different states. In PA, we must either have proof of insurance, or prove that we have a certain amount of money set aside in case you need we’re culpable for injury or property damage. I don’t remember how much it is, precisely.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me! I should have said, “but it mandates car insurance, then it hands you over to the insurance industry–unless you’re rich. Now that’s fair!”
Now things have gotten worse. The kind of plans Hillary was trying to implement won’t work now. We’ve missed the boat. We’re either going to have to do something more drastic or the big three are going to go belly up, and that’s just for starters.
I tend to agree that things have shifted such that what the Clintons proposed back in the early 90’s likely is completely unworkable at this point.
However, wouldn’t this be an excellent thread to examine the recent proposals to see if they in any way would at least staunch the blood flow?
has anybody even looked at the details yet?
I’ve only skimmed Arnie’s proposal, and there are some interesting economic arguments, but I haven’t delved much into the details yet.
I guess the first question would be:
Is this move by the Repubs simply damage control and misdirection? Or is the something substantial to it that actually has a legitimate chance to make a difference?
methinks you are understanding the current trends based on personal prejudice.
Methinks you’re wrong.
Yoou can argue the reasons behind the recently expanded interest in this subject on the conservative side, but you can’t argue that it is just a debate about “some degree”; both Arnie’s and Chimpy’s plans are rather far more involved than that.
Both of their plans call for only a limited expansion of the government’s role in providing health insurance.
Indeed, it would be worth discussing at some point exactly what has caused the apparently large philosophical shift on this particular issue within the Repubs.
I don’t see any large philosophical shift by the Republicans on the issue, just a modest increase in their interest in moving towards universal coverage through increased health insurance subsidies for the poor and expanded mandates on private health insurers. They seem as strongly opposed to major structural reform, and especially to a national single-payer system, as ever. Single-payer is basically just a pipe-dream of the far left at this point.
Really… perhaps it’s different in different states. In PA, we must either have proof of insurance, or prove that we have a certain amount of money set aside in case you need we’re culpable for injury or property damage. I don’t remember how much it is, precisely.
interesting. How much money is considered sufficient? Do they use standard insurance tables to calculate that?
on the surface, I think I prefer PA’s method to CA’s. I also think that the MUCH larger population in CA might have something to do with why it is the way it is.
I can see possibilities for a court case every time someone pays out of pocket for a liability accident in PA. do they have a way around that?
I really don’t know. I have insurance, so I never bothered looking up the details of the alternative. It’s a fairly large chunk of change, though.
That’s probably going to change soon.
That doesn’t seem likely. In the two states where single-payer universal health care was put to the voters (California and Oregon), it lost by a margin of 3 to 1. If single-payer health care loses by 50 points in two of the bluest states in the country, its chances of being passed at the national level are infinitesimal, especially given the inevitable opposition from the health insurance and provider industries.
Have you noticed how GM, Ford and now Chrysler have been laying off thousands of US employees? That’s because they can’t afford health insurance.
I think that probably has more to do with the fact that their products tend to be inferior to the ones produced by their Asian and European competitors.
The kind of plans Hillary was trying to implement won’t work now.
Why not? How do you know?
Bingo.
Why is the sky blue? What happens when we die?
Now there’s a novel insight. I don’t think that’s occurred to anyone yet. Maybe you should notify the people at GM, Ford and Chrysler so they can do something about it.
Gosh. I hope it’s not too late!
How many decent jobs are out there for someone with *only* a high-school education?
And before you say “There’s plenty of jobs out there for people without a bachelor’s”, remember that most students getting degrees or diplomas at two-year technical colleges – your welders. your RN and LPN nurses, your HVAC techs, your lab techs, your mechanics – are only able to go due to some sort of federal or state aid.
Heliologue said:
I was wondering when the libertarian would show up. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but Franken was trying very hard to distinguish between typical welfare states and the real purpose of social services, which is supposed to be more like a safety net than a handout.
Of course, you realize that you will likely never find a candidate putting the onus of responsibility back on the electorate: it’s a contradiction. People elect officials to get specific things in return, not for the official to turn around and say “Do it your fucking self, you lazy bum.”
I am all for social services that serve real needs, not for blanket coverage for the healthy and able. Our social services have lost any forward thinking vision they might have once had through the machinations of the “Political-Media Compex”, apologies to Ike. To respond to your comments I say:
First of all, I am not a libertarian, though some of my opinions are mirrored by their philosophy of governance. I also have opinions that are mirrored by the two “popular” parties. If I took the time to cross reference all my opinions I’m sure there would be traces of just about any approach to the relationship between the governors and the governed that you or I could think of.
Second, there is a perfectly just (by virtue of necessity) purpose for social services. That purpose is to ensure that the “common welfare” is available for all citizens. The bogieman under the bed here is that it has become too easy to merely claim you need these services and many of us are persuaded that it is a “right” to insist on government sponsored welfare. It is easy to see that this greases the skids for those who could otherwise cope; either through increased personal effort and/or the assistance of family, friends and local charity but choose to go to the state instead. Note the word “choose”.
Third, I would say that the reason that politicians don’t put the onus of responsibility on the electorate is twofold: people steeped in the welfare state mentality would squeal like a pig caught under a gate and the press would have a field day with their protestations. The result could only be bad for such a bold poll. Furthermore, there is no inherent contradiction here. Ostensibly we elect people to lead, not to prepare a smooth path before us. This is what I see as the prime principle embodied by power being vested in the general population; we don’t need to wait to be told because we are assumed to already know how to care for ourselves and our communities. We know this, presumably, through heritage and education and upbringing. I fear that this knowledge and sense of responsibility is seriously eroded in modern America. One thing you can count on in terms of any population is that there are always some who will not help themselves, let alone their neighbors come hell or high water. This knowledge was passed to me and my schoolmates in the Civics class that I mentioned in my previous post. My parents instilled self reliance and compassion for others in me at a young age. Since I became “politically aware” some forty years ago I have witnessed a slow replacement of civic values by entitlement values. In my opinion this is bad for America, and by virtue of her global influence, bad for all people.
I in no way intended to suggest, nor would I countenance any elected or appointed official implying that the citizenry should “Do it your fucking self, you lazy bum.” Not belaboring the fact that there is a surfeit of lazy bums among us, such an attitude is not characteristic of, or tolerable in a leader. There is that word again, “leader”. My contention in these comments is that we have begun to see what happens to the populace when the tasks of basic maintenance are gradually handed over to “agencies” and “departments” and “offices” operated under government auspices. If these agencies, et cetera, were properly configured they would busy themselves with providing the tools and environments required to allow us to maintain a healthy nation. Since they are too myopic for that task they have taken to providing basic commodities, thus undercutting the will of individuals to be self motivated and disciplined. I see this as unfortunate and destructive to the spirit of this republic.
In no way do I imply that those with real, demonstrable needs arising out of the vagaries of life and luck should be excluded. Indeed, most welfare programs began as services for the sick and broken members of our society. In my opinion, this group does not include those who became sick or broken as a result of their own actions or decisions. The simple fact is that lack of strong leadership at all levels of government, coupled with the seduction of media exposure (by nature restricted to mere gloss and mass appeal) has created the popular opinion that we have a right to supported by the state (read “taxpayers”) in direct opposition to the notion of a nation of strong, confident, able, charitable and civic-minded citizens.
Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. I am not self righteous and I don’t live in a bubble. I took my American History and Social Studies quite seriously, have been a news junkie since age nine and I have pretty good powers of observation, thank you.
When people can get more of what they want simply by demanding it, they neither use their resources wisely nor restrain the appetite for more.
This is why politicians will always move towards more taxation, more governmental control, and more governmental power – a tendency that is supposed to be restrained, not encouraged, by the populace.
It’s also why military drafts have been such disasters, both in maintaining individual liberties and providing for the common defense.
Now there’s a novel insight. I don’t think that’s occurred to anyone yet.
Well, make up your mind. You just said it was the cost of health insurance.
Methinks you’re wrong.
based on what? the rest of your post where you postulate what the plans are about without really knowing?
I’m going to ignore your speculation, ‘k?
thanks for playing.
If you’re serious, perhaps you would like to help me dissect Arnies’s plan, for example?
you obviously haven’t actually looked at these plans in detail yet yourself, and apparently far less than I have, and even that was cursory.
Seriously, I’m interested in seeing what the real potential of these plans are, for anyone who actually IS interested in looking at the details of the plans themselves.
oh, but for something to do in case you don’t feel like doing the actual legwork into the repubs latest foray, maybe you could take a stab at answering the question i posed earlier, which is, unlike the rest, a request for a subjective opinion:
Is this just spin, or are these plans really an attempt to create a realistic health care plan?
You can at least answer that, yes?
David:
I know there is a large data set to support your answer, but there is a reality here, as was outlined above, and there is some serious hemorrhaging that needs to be stemmed.
Are you really sure that the current plans are nothing more than spin?
I’ll go ahead and post some of the economic arguments I’ve seen supporting Arnie’s current plan tommorrow, which while not completely on target, are interesting nonetheless.
health care being one of the largest voter issues for the next election, and this being a thread about elections (even if it is about good ol Al), I figure it would be a good thing to debate.
answering my own question… I’m not so sure this is all just spin (though some of it most certainly is).
It is the cost of health insurance. The point of my sarcastic comment is that the quality issue was raised about 30 years ago, and the American Automakers have put enormous energy and resources into addressing it, and they have succeeded, so the quality complaint is just old news.
I like Al and I’d vote for him (were I American) but that was a load of corny old crap! If anyone tried that routine in the UK, people would assume that their comedy routine was still continuing. I guess it just goes to show what a difference there is between electoral styles across the pond.
I thought it was a little too tv-aw shucks-sincere, but I’m glad that someone is at least saying those things (and that it’s him). However, what I really liked was the cute way he says “gub’mint”.
I can’t argue it’s not corny, but if by “crap” you mean artificial or insincere, I beg to disagree. I’ve been listening to Franken’s show religiously (pardon the expression) for most of its run, and I’ve read all of his political books (listened to ’em, actually; they make great audiobooks), and I’m convinced his commitment to family, and to government as an agent of opportunity for “regular” people, is deeply heartfelt.
Schmalzy, yes; BS, absolutely not. IMHO, of course.
No, I think he was being sincere and he appears to be a genuinely good guy. It just amused me to note the contrast in styles between the US and UK; you’d be laughed out of town for that kind of schmaltz over here.
Ichthyic,
based on what?
Based on the evidence of increased interest by Republicans in modest health care reform.
If you’re serious, perhaps you would like to help me dissect Arnies’s plan, for example?
As I said, Arnie’s plan proposes only modest changes in California’s health care system to move towards universal coverage, not any kind of major structural reform, let alone the replacement of private health insurance with a single-payer public insurance system. The major features of the plan are increased health insurance subsidies for the poor, and expanded mandates on health insurers and individuals.
Is this just spin, or are these plans really an attempt to create a realistic health care plan?
They’re an attempt to provide health insurance for more people by building on the existing health insurance and delivery systems. They’re not any kind of fundamental reform of the current system.
I can see your point, so I’ll assume that you’re correct for the sake of argument. Not everybody should go to college. The next question is, how do we decide who goes to college? I think that ideally, it should be based on aptitude and individual choice. I don’t think that the ability to pay is a healthy rationing mechanism for education. If we can reduce the impact of the “can’t pay for it” angle, we’ll get more of the people who should be going to college into college rather than selecting partially on a totally irrelevant variable.
Actually, no. Like so many things, there’s a diminishing-returns problem associated with sending people to college. We could send ever single citizen, and get very little benefit out of it.
This comment is diversionary and absurd and has nothing to do with funding education.
I find it peculiar that so many of you adhere to the belief that order must be imposed by a centralized authority. Whatever happened to permitting it to arise from the collective undirected actions of the many?
What do you mean, ‘how do we decide who goes to college’? We don’t. And neither you nor I do.
…order…arise from the collective undirected actions of the many…
So, the discussion has moved from ordering human social structures to Brownian motion. Very interesting.
Incidentally, although I haven’t heard him explicitely say so, I think that Al is a likely supporter of Browninan motion.
Wow he sounded so honest. How did he do that? I wanna vote for him and I’m not even from minnesota. Hell I’m not even American.
“Whatever happened to permitting it to arise from the collective undirected actions of the many?”
That’s related to von Mises’ and Hayek’s critiques of socialist command economies, which were broadly correct. However, Hayek believed that a certain level of progressive taxation, redistribution, and government regulation within a fundamentally market economy were acceptable. Hayek is also considered a pioneer of connectionism and neural networks, another kind of emergent order.
Contemporary Social Democratic parties have assimilated a great deal of similar critiques of planned economies and in recent years have accepted greater liberalization (marketization) of national economies. (My own view is that as mixed economies evolve due to macro forces like technology and globalization, the optimal proportions of and relationships between government participation and private market activity will change.)
I don’t think that’s it at all. Most of us are happy to allow markets and the undirected actions of the many to run just about everything. I don’t think there’s any philosophical opposition to that idea here. The difference is that many of us are pragmatic enough to realize that there are cases when some central planning can improve the outcome. Markets don’t always produce ideal results, and while it may cause a serious emotional reaction in some, government intervention can sometimes improve those results.
Ah. I forgot who I was addressing. I’ll make sure to check that this post is pedantically unambiguous. What I mean is that we (as a society–all of us) let a combination of aptitude, individual choice, and money decide who goes to college. I am arguing that while money is usually a very good rationing mechanism, it’s not necessarily a good one for higher education.
You pointed out yourself that not everybody should go to college. I’m merely pointing out that if we take that as fact, society should want those who are most apt and able to make use of education to get it. Using “ability to pay” as an important factor in deciding who goes to college simply isn’t going to get the desired result.
It’s never crossed your mind that society doesn’t decide some things, has it?
Clearly my pedantry meter was broken when I wrote my last post. I’m really, really sorry. Do you disagree that the deciding main factors for going to college are aptitude, individual choice, and ability to pay for it? Do you disagree that American society appears to be OK with this and allow it to be the way it is? Let’s see… how else can I phrase this to get past the Caledonian ambiguity filter?
* The net result of our generally capitalistic society is that money is used as a rationing mechanism for scarce resources and, as such, it’s used that way for education.
* When the market decides something and society doesn’t overturn the result with a law, society can be said to have “decided” that the outcome is acceptable. Do read this one twice.
* [Caution: intuitively obvious but not necessarily primary definition coming up!] Society can “decide” something the same way markets are said to “decide” things–not consciously but rather by collective action affecting the outcome.
* American society accepts the outcomes of the market in most cases, including the selection of who goes to college. Because if it didn’t, it would have enacted laws to change the results.
Oh wait! There are some laws regulating some college admissions, so surely that will invalidate my point and make you miss the point of the post. Maybe I should strike the last bullet from the record. My basic point is this: Allowing “ability to pay” be a large deciding factor in who gets limited education resources is not socially optimal, and no matter how much it may make objectivists cry, it’s not totally batshit insane to suggest that we introduce money into the equation to produce a more socially useful result. If you do decide to dump my entire post based on your interpretation of English as some sort of context-free grammar, please do consider that last point. It’s all I’m trying to get across.
Interesting, though I still find it disinheartening that Franken and so many others think they can and should “shake up” the Democratic party, when polls I have read about would support a genuinely social democratic party in the US if such could be organized. For example, there is political will for universal healthcare, at least if the population is meant. The plutocratic elites in both mainstream parties don’t support it, but that’s not surprising, is it?