The Republican Healthcare Crackup
#1
An excerpt from the David Brooks column in the NYT 3/10. 

The central debate in the old era was big government versus small government, the market versus the state. But now you’ve got millions of people growing up in social and cultural chaos and not getting the skills they need to thrive in a technological society. This is not a problem you can solve with tax cuts.
And if you don’t solve this problem, voters around the world have demonstrated that they’re quite willing to destroy market mechanisms to get the security they crave. They will trash free trade, cut legal skilled immigration, attack modern finance and choose state-run corporatism over dynamic free market capitalism.
The core of the new era is this: If you want to preserve the market, you have to have a strong state that enables people to thrive in it. If you are pro-market, you have to be pro-state. You can come up with innovative ways to deliver state services, like affordable health care, but you can’t just leave people on their own. The social fabric, the safety net and the human capital sources just aren’t strong enough.
New social crises transform party philosophies. We’re in the middle of a transformation. But to get there we’ve got to live through this final health care debacle first.
Reply
#2
(03-10-2017, 05:44 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: An excerpt from the David Brooks column in the NYT 3/10. 

The central debate in the old era was big government versus small government, the market versus the state. But now you’ve got millions of people growing up in social and cultural chaos and not getting the skills they need to thrive in a technological society. This is not a problem you can solve with tax cuts.
And if you don’t solve this problem, voters around the world have demonstrated that they’re quite willing to destroy market mechanisms to get the security they crave. They will trash free trade, cut legal skilled immigration, attack modern finance and choose state-run corporatism over dynamic free market capitalism.
The core of the new era is this: If you want to preserve the market, you have to have a strong state that enables people to thrive in it. If you are pro-market, you have to be pro-state. You can come up with innovative ways to deliver state services, like affordable health care, but you can’t just leave people on their own. The social fabric, the safety net and the human capital sources just aren’t strong enough.
New social crises transform party philosophies. We’re in the middle of a transformation. But to get there we’ve got to live through this final health care debacle first.

A load of Marxist crap from a dying newspaper.

If you believe anything from any columnist from the New York Times, you are a blind man.
Reply
#3
(03-10-2017, 06:58 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 05:44 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: An excerpt from the David Brooks column in the NYT 3/10. 

The central debate in the old era was big government versus small government, the market versus the state. But now you’ve got millions of people growing up in social and cultural chaos and not getting the skills they need to thrive in a technological society. This is not a problem you can solve with tax cuts.
And if you don’t solve this problem, voters around the world have demonstrated that they’re quite willing to destroy market mechanisms to get the security they crave. They will trash free trade, cut legal skilled immigration, attack modern finance and choose state-run corporatism over dynamic free market capitalism.
The core of the new era is this: If you want to preserve the market, you have to have a strong state that enables people to thrive in it. If you are pro-market, you have to be pro-state. You can come up with innovative ways to deliver state services, like affordable health care, but you can’t just leave people on their own. The social fabric, the safety net and the human capital sources just aren’t strong enough.
New social crises transform party philosophies. We’re in the middle of a transformation. But to get there we’ve got to live through this final health care debacle first.

A load of Marxist crap from a dying newspaper.

If you believe anything from any columnist from  the New York Times, you are a blind man.

Thank you, you saved me from having to call it a bunch of crap.
Reply
#4
Nationalize the Whole Medical Industry.

NWMI
Reply
#5
(03-10-2017, 09:05 PM)chuck white Wrote: Nationalize the Whole Medical Industry.

NWMI

Just like Russia.  Big Grin
Reply
#6
(03-10-2017, 09:16 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:05 PM)chuck white Wrote: Nationalize the Whole Medical Industry.

NWMI

Just like Russia.  Big Grin

What makes some of the comments above almost hilarious is that no one bothered to respond to the content, but only to the source. 

To suggest that David Brooks is a Marxist is beyond stupid. This is a guy who was once mentored by William F. Buckley and worked on the National Review, a very conservative publication. Brooks is a registered Republican, if now more "moderate" and reflective than many in the party. He still writes and speaks to genuine conservative values. (You might want to do a You Tube search and listen to a least a couple of the many speeches he has given that often expresses those values) 

And it's true that the NYT is a dying newspaper. All newspapers are dying. Craigslist may have started the decline by sucking away the want ads that supported much of the papers. And too, our population is changing and adults are not reading as much as we once did. There has been a lot written recently about the death of "long form journalism" and the attention span (or lack of) of our citizenry. And still, the NYT is recognized by many as "the paper of record" and the closest thing we have to a national newspaper. 

n Brook's piece, maybe one significant phrase we should pay attention to is "The Social Fabric". A simple line, it's important and goes back to Edmund Burke (the father of modern Conservatism), John Locke, David Hume, Spinoza, and Adam Smith (among others), who were so very important in shaping the thinking of our founding fathers who penned the documents that gives us the wonder of this democratic republic. The collapse of that social fabric will be our doom. 

So, without some rebuttal of what Brooks has written, the responses here have little, if any value. Sadly, this is becoming typical of our forum and may be one reason our membership has dwindled down to so few. 

Simply put, if you you can only respond with "one liners" of rebuttal, why not just continue picking your nose and reading the simple blogs that reinforce the ignorance that supports what you want to believe. 

These are serious times and require the attention of serious people.
Reply
#7
(03-11-2017, 09:56 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:16 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:05 PM)chuck white Wrote: Nationalize the Whole Medical Industry.

NWMI

Just like Russia.  Big Grin

What makes some of the comments above almost hilarious is that no one bothered to respond to the content, but only to the source. 

To suggest that David Brooks is a Marxist is beyond stupid. This is a guy who was once mentored by William F. Buckley and worked on the National Review, a very conservative publication. Brooks is a registered Republican, if now more "moderate" and reflective than many in the party. He still writes and speaks to genuine conservative values. (You might want to do a You Tube search and listen to a least a couple of the many speeches he has given that often expresses those values) 

And it's true that the NYT is a dying newspaper. All newspapers are dying. Craigslist may have started the decline by sucking away the want ads that supported much of the papers. And too, our population is changing and adults are not reading as much as we once did. There has been a lot written recently about the death of "long form journalism" and the attention span (or lack of) of our citizenry. And still, the NYT is recognized by many as "the paper of record" and the closest thing we have to a national newspaper. 

n Brook's piece, maybe one significant phrase we should pay attention to is "The Social Fabric". A simple line, it's important and goes back to Edmund Burke (the father of modern Conservatism), John Locke, David Hume, Spinoza, and Adam Smith (among others), who were so very important in shaping the thinking of our founding fathers who penned the documents that gives us the wonder of this democratic republic. The collapse of that social fabric will be our doom. 

So, without some rebuttal of what Brooks has written, the responses here have little, if any value. Sadly, this is becoming typical of our forum and may be one reason our membership has dwindled down to so few. 

Simply put, if you you can only respond with "one liners" of rebuttal, why not just continue picking your nose and reading the simple blogs that reinforce the ignorance that supports what you want to believe. 

These are serious times and require the attention of serious people.

And you can not be taken seriously anymore, if you continue to define Brooks as anything but a radical alt/leftist along with he paper he writes for.

I feel that I DID rebut Brooks.  I read the excerpt and it is Marxist thinking that reveals the end game of destroying Capitalism in favor of Communism, So I said so, albeit more briefly than you are capable of.
Reply
#8
(03-11-2017, 09:56 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:16 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:05 PM)chuck white Wrote: Nationalize the Whole Medical Industry.

NWMI

Just like Russia.  Big Grin

What makes some of the comments above almost hilarious is that no one bothered to respond to the content, but only to the source. 

To suggest that David Brooks is a Marxist is beyond stupid. This is a guy who was once mentored by William F. Buckley and worked on the National Review, a very conservative publication. Brooks is a registered Republican, if now more "moderate" and reflective than many in the party. He still writes and speaks to genuine conservative values. (You might want to do a You Tube search and listen to a least a couple of the many speeches he has given that often expresses those values) 

And it's true that the NYT is a dying newspaper. All newspapers are dying. Craigslist may have started the decline by sucking away the want ads that supported much of the papers. And too, our population is changing and adults are not reading as much as we once did. There has been a lot written recently about the death of "long form journalism" and the attention span (or lack of) of our citizenry. And still, the NYT is recognized by many as "the paper of record" and the closest thing we have to a national newspaper. 

n Brook's piece, maybe one significant phrase we should pay attention to is "The Social Fabric". A simple line, it's important and goes back to Edmund Burke (the father of modern Conservatism), John Locke, David Hume, Spinoza, and Adam Smith (among others), who were so very important in shaping the thinking of our founding fathers who penned the documents that gives us the wonder of this democratic republic. The collapse of that social fabric will be our doom. 

So, without some rebuttal of what Brooks has written, the responses here have little, if any value. Sadly, this is becoming typical of our forum and may be one reason our membership has dwindled down to so few. 

Simply put, if you you can only respond with "one liners" of rebuttal, why not just continue picking your nose and reading the simple blogs that reinforce the ignorance that supports what you want to believe. 

These are serious times and require the attention of serious people.

I would say, that American society will evolve and with that evolution, will come changes in the size and function of our government. Where he see ,'people  not getting the skills they need to thrive in a technological society', I see with A.I. they won't need skills. They won't drive cars, they can't tie shoe laces, they can't use a rotary phone.
Reply
#9
(03-11-2017, 10:17 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(03-11-2017, 09:56 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:16 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:05 PM)chuck white Wrote: Nationalize the Whole Medical Industry.

NWMI

Just like Russia.  Big Grin

What makes some of the comments above almost hilarious is that no one bothered to respond to the content, but only to the source. 

To suggest that David Brooks is a Marxist is beyond stupid. This is a guy who was once mentored by William F. Buckley and worked on the National Review, a very conservative publication. Brooks is a registered Republican, if now more "moderate" and reflective than many in the party. He still writes and speaks to genuine conservative values. (You might want to do a You Tube search and listen to a least a couple of the many speeches he has given that often expresses those values) 

And it's true that the NYT is a dying newspaper. All newspapers are dying. Craigslist may have started the decline by sucking away the want ads that supported much of the papers. And too, our population is changing and adults are not reading as much as we once did. There has been a lot written recently about the death of "long form journalism" and the attention span (or lack of) of our citizenry. And still, the NYT is recognized by many as "the paper of record" and the closest thing we have to a national newspaper. 

n Brook's piece, maybe one significant phrase we should pay attention to is "The Social Fabric". A simple line, it's important and goes back to Edmund Burke (the father of modern Conservatism), John Locke, David Hume, Spinoza, and Adam Smith (among others), who were so very important in shaping the thinking of our founding fathers who penned the documents that gives us the wonder of this democratic republic. The collapse of that social fabric will be our doom. 

So, without some rebuttal of what Brooks has written, the responses here have little, if any value. Sadly, this is becoming typical of our forum and may be one reason our membership has dwindled down to so few. 

Simply put, if you you can only respond with "one liners" of rebuttal, why not just continue picking your nose and reading the simple blogs that reinforce the ignorance that supports what you want to believe. 

These are serious times and require the attention of serious people.

And you can not be taken seriously anymore, if you continue to define Brooks as anything but a radical alt/leftist along with he paper he writes for.

I feel that I DID rebut Brooks.  I read the excerpt and it is Marxist thinking that reveals the end game of destroying Capitalism in favor of Communism, So I said so, albeit more briefly than you are capable of.

Hardly left let alone alt. Reminds me of the oft used accusation that anyone left of Attila the Hun is a Socialist. Laughing  Besides I don't think he was saying what you think.
Reply
#10
(03-11-2017, 10:17 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(03-11-2017, 09:56 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:16 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 09:05 PM)chuck white Wrote: Nationalize the Whole Medical Industry.

NWMI

Just like Russia.  Big Grin

What makes some of the comments above almost hilarious is that no one bothered to respond to the content, but only to the source. 

To suggest that David Brooks is a Marxist is beyond stupid. This is a guy who was once mentored by William F. Buckley and worked on the National Review, a very conservative publication. Brooks is a registered Republican, if now more "moderate" and reflective than many in the party. He still writes and speaks to genuine conservative values. (You might want to do a You Tube search and listen to a least a couple of the many speeches he has given that often expresses those values) 

And it's true that the NYT is a dying newspaper. All newspapers are dying. Craigslist may have started the decline by sucking away the want ads that supported much of the papers. And too, our population is changing and adults are not reading as much as we once did. There has been a lot written recently about the death of "long form journalism" and the attention span (or lack of) of our citizenry. And still, the NYT is recognized by many as "the paper of record" and the closest thing we have to a national newspaper. 

n Brook's piece, maybe one significant phrase we should pay attention to is "The Social Fabric". A simple line, it's important and goes back to Edmund Burke (the father of modern Conservatism), John Locke, David Hume, Spinoza, and Adam Smith (among others), who were so very important in shaping the thinking of our founding fathers who penned the documents that gives us the wonder of this democratic republic. The collapse of that social fabric will be our doom. 

So, without some rebuttal of what Brooks has written, the responses here have little, if any value. Sadly, this is becoming typical of our forum and may be one reason our membership has dwindled down to so few. 

Simply put, if you you can only respond with "one liners" of rebuttal, why not just continue picking your nose and reading the simple blogs that reinforce the ignorance that supports what you want to believe. 

These are serious times and require the attention of serious people.

And you can not be taken seriously anymore, if you continue to define Brooks as anything but a radical alt/leftist along with he paper he writes for.

I feel that I DID rebut Brooks.  I read the excerpt and it is Marxist thinking that reveals the end game of destroying Capitalism in favor of Communism, So I said so, albeit more briefly than you are capable of.

If you did, in fact read that, and concluded that it is "Marxist thinking that reveals the end game of destroying Capitalism in favor of Communism,", you may need to go in for a check up. There is a chance that the one or both of your Carotid arteries need attention.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)