Althouse: "For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase... I absolutely reject that notion."

July 18, 2010

"For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase... I absolutely reject that notion."

Absolutely... until...

66 comments:

Beth said...: Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

So can I get subsidies on my other taxes?; 7/18/10, 12:16 PM
Richard Dolan said...: More than any president in memory, O rarely means what he says or says what he means. There's probably something in Alinsky's code that deals with this.

With O, all you can do is watch what he does and draw your own conclusions about what direction he wants to take.

The price he will pay (is now paying) is that all except his most devoted partisans are tuning him out. He's become very hard to listen to, particularly now that it's clear that even he does not take seriously what he has to say. People tuned out Bush during his second term for a different reason but the effect of their tuning out O is quite likely to be the same.; 7/18/10, 12:19 PM
Big Mike said...: The administration's original position, that forcing people to purchase health insurance, was not a form of taxation always was indefensible.; 7/18/10, 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama was correct in saying it was a penalty and not a "tax", despite what the American government's attorneys might be arguing now.

Just like Bush was correct in saying that waterboarding was enhanced interrogation and not "torture", despite what the American government's attorneys might have argued in the past.; 7/18/10, 12:31 PM
Chase said...: Is there a bigger example of hypocrisy and deceit from the Democrats and Obama today?

Seriously - does anyone give a shit? How are we leaving democracy behind a bit at a time under Democrat rule?

Look at history - we are so fucked. Do you even give a damn?; 7/18/10, 12:35 PM
Chase said...: Dead Julius,

Obama was correct in saying it was a penalty and not a "tax",

Congratulations! You win for the most stupid statement of the day on the entire internet!; 7/18/10, 12:37 PM
Unknown said...: Just like only people who make more than a quarter mil will be the only ones who see their taxes go up.

As El Rushbo said, everything Barack Obama says has an expiration date.

Dead Julius said...

...

Just like Bush was correct in saying that waterboarding was enhanced interrogation and not "torture", despite what the American government's attorneys might have argued in the past.

Waterboarding only constitutes torture when the Demos need to fabricate a faux moral issue.; 7/18/10, 12:38 PM
Michael Haz said...: Stoopid people believed that Obama was post-taxist.; 7/18/10, 12:39 PM
Chase said...: despite what the American government's attorneys might be arguing now.

So, you are acknowledging that the President of the United States is a willful liar in an American court of law?

Damn, you are such an idiot!

I blame the poblic education system.

`; 7/18/10, 12:41 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Just like Bush was correct in saying that waterboarding was enhanced interrogation and not "torture", despite what the American government's attorneys might have argued in the past."

That's not a good analogy, because Bush wouldn't have switched to using the word for the purposes of litigation. (Wouldn't have had the motive to either.); 7/18/10, 12:45 PM
jamboree said...: Of course it's a new tax. What annoys the hell out of me were all those who posed and lied and spun and pressured to somehow make it something, anything, but exactly what it plainly is and always was. What further annoys me is Hillary, who would have been *far* more likely to outplay the insurance companies, telling the truth about the mandate being necessary (which anyone could see who bothered to look at it in economic terms) during the debates and getting creamed for it because people couldn't handle it, while Obama soothed and mollified and basically lied his ass off about it and got rewarded.

Fuck Obama and his all his supporters.; 7/18/10, 12:50 PM
bagoh20 said...: Out of compassion, I no longer bring up the subject of Obama with my friends who voted for him. They clearly show a sense of embarrassment when the subject arises, and I really feel bad for them. I'm not kidding. These people have lost confidence in their own intelligence. It's sad to see in people you care about. They generally did not vote against McCain, as I think Ann claims to have. They voted for "Hope and Change" and expected competence, which is quite embarrassing now.; 7/18/10, 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: @Althouse-

That's not a good analogy, because Bush wouldn't have switched to using the word for the purposes of litigation. (Wouldn't have had the motive to either.)

That's because Bush was able to sidestep having to explain his terminology in litigation by uttering the magical words "state secrets"!

Besides, you misrepresented my analogy. I'm saying that Bush caused America to switch from, not to, using the word "torture" to describe waterboarding. American lawyers used to claim that waterboarding was torture in litigation, didn't they?; 7/18/10, 12:56 PM
knox said...: Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

I know this has been said thousands of times before, but how can they possibly confirm that every single individual in the US is insured at any given point in time? And to make matters worse, how are they going to determine on a case by case basis exactly who qualifies for a subsidy??

They can't! It's obvious on its face. The whole scheme allows for endless fraud and waste. What a clusterfuck.; 7/18/10, 1:02 PM
Blue Collar Todd said...: President Obama and the Democratic Party lied to us about what was in ObamaCare and what it would do to our health care. Only after it passed did they start admitting their real agenda behind it: rationing, wealth redistribution, deciding whose life is worthy of life, and a major step toward the Totalitarian control over our lives.; 7/18/10, 1:03 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Out of compassion, I no longer bring up the subject of Obama with my friends who voted for him. They clearly show a sense of embarrassment when the subject arises, and I really feel bad for them

Why show any compassion for those idiots who have sold us all down the river? I don't care how bad it makes them feel...I rub it in at every opportunity and tell them that they should burn in Hell for what they have done to the Country, to ME, to my family and to the generations that haven't even been born yet.

They stupidly voted for this piece of shit without looking at any history on the man, no examining of his records. The WILLFULLY ignored all the warning signals and because they wanted unicorns and puppies, hope and change.....they have set us even further on the path of total destruction of our way of life, of our FREEDOMs.

It may not be irreversible, but I have my sincere doubts that we can pull ourself back from the abyss.

So compasion for these people??? Ptooey. I spit on them because I would go to jail if I did what I really want to them.; 7/18/10, 1:07 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: that we can pull ourself back from the abyss.

Or ourselves .... :-(; 7/18/10, 1:10 PM
garage mahal said...: This is a tax. And the tax is a call. And the call is coming FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!; 7/18/10, 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it patently obvious that 30 million uninsured Americans can be insured for free? It's not a tax, it's magic. And, of course, if anyone get's schtupped, it will only be the greedy super rich. Nothing to worry about. And of course the Feds won't pay for abortions--they're free!; 7/18/10, 1:34 PM
Revenant said...: Why show any compassion for those idiots who have sold us all down the river?

Because their alternative was voting for John McCain. Honestly, the 2008 election had the worst choices since 1976. I can't blame people who relied on the hope that Obama would turn out to not be that bad.; 7/18/10, 2:06 PM
KCFleming said...: "I can't blame people who relied on the hope that Obama would turn out to not be that bad."

Really?

At worst, McCain would have been more-of-the-same socialism by the installment plan.

Many many people warned that Obama would be horribly destructive.
It's not even close, and it's no longer defensible. And yes, for our country, it turns out to be on par with having voted for Hitler in the 1930s.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, given the alternatives?
That's no defense, that's pleading guilty.; 7/18/10, 2:12 PM
TJ said...: Mandate...law..tax...whatever.

This healthcare shit ain't gonna work...it has no fucking chance.

Dontcha ever just get to the point where ya look at this stupid shit they come up with and decide right there on the spot ya ain't going along?

Chase: "Look at history - we are so fucked. Do you even give a damn?"

About the country? No. The country is getting what it deserves for allowing the left/liberals to infiltrate all the institutions that matter over the last 50 years.

Things ain't getting better, as anyone willing to investigate can see. Unemployment is not going to get better in the foreseeable future, not with these assholes in charge.; 7/18/10, 2:14 PM
KCFleming said...: Worse than that, Revenant, there are still a huge number of folks who insist Obama is doing a helluva job and would vote for him again.

Criminey, you said you'd vote for him in 2012 if he's pitted against certain GOP candidates.; 7/18/10, 2:15 PM
Wannie said...: Obama lied, your wealth died. This isn't the first time. Dear God, I wish it were the last.; 7/18/10, 2:28 PM
Unknown said...: Pogo said...

"I can't blame people who relied on the hope that Obama would turn out to not be that bad."

Really?

At worst, McCain would have been more-of-the-same socialism by the installment plan.

One thing I can't see is McCain doing the apology tour and undercutting the troops the way The Zero has been doing.; 7/18/10, 2:30 PM
Humperdink said...: Dead Julius said "Obama was correct in saying it was a penalty and not a "tax"

You were kidding, right? Every dime I send to the these clowns in Washington is a tax...no matter how it's labeled. It is not a penalty, a gift, a charitable contribution, or a loan. I would send them nothing if the gov,t didn't hold all the cards. We are so screwed with mindsets like yours.

As December 31,2010 approaches, we'll be hearing how the proceeds from all estates "belong" to the gov't...as if they somehow earned it. I know Bernie Sanders has already staked his claim to the $$$$$.; 7/18/10, 2:31 PM
David said...: Pants on fire . . . .; 7/18/10, 2:32 PM
GMay said...: So what's the spin going to be from Journolist 2.0?; 7/18/10, 2:52 PM
KCFleming said...: "One thing I can't see is McCain doing the apology tour and undercutting the troops the way The Zero has been doing."

Nor would there have been any bowing.; 7/18/10, 2:53 PM
sunsong said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/18/10, 3:25 PM
sunsong said...: {{{…The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. }}}

{{{This is a sign that NYT’s reporter Robert Pear is on the ball. But wait! There is more that is not in the article.}}}

{{{The Supreme Court has defined a tax as having a revenue raising purpose–a requirement that is usually easy to satisfy. But the section of the act that specifically identifies all of its revenue raising provisions for purposes of scoring its costs (which is a big deal), the insurance mandate “penalty” goes unmentioned….}}}

{{{…But I have so far seen no case that says (4) when a measure is expressly justified in the statute itself as a regulation of commerce (as the NYT accurately reports), the courts will look look behind that characterization during litigation to ask if it could have been justified as a tax, or (5) when Congress fails to include a penalty among all the “revenue producing” measures in a bill, the Court will nevertheless impute a revenue purpose to the measure…}}}

{{{…So, like the invocation of the Commerce Clause, this invocation of the Tax Power is factually and judicially unprecedented. It is yet another unprecedented claim of Congressional power. Only this one is even more sweeping and dangerous than the Commerce Clause theory…}}}

<A HREF="http://volokh.com/category/uncategorized/>randy barnett</A>; 7/18/10, 3:26 PM
sunsong said...: >>>…Of course, these constitutional impediments can be avoided if Congress is willing to raise corporate and/or income taxes enough to fund fully a new national health system. Absent this politically dangerous -- and therefore unlikely -- scenario, advocates of universal health coverage must accept that Congress's power, like that of the other branches, has limits. These limits apply regardless of how important the issue may be, and neither Congress nor the president can take constitutional short cuts. The genius of our system is that, no matter how convinced our elected officials may be that certain measures are in the public interest, their goals can be accomplished only in accord with the powers and processes the Constitution mandates, processes that inevitably make them accountable to the American people. <<<

washington post; 7/18/10, 3:28 PM
KCFleming said...: This plus the expansive commerce clause means the Constitution is functionally dead.

Or, as the Democrats call it, "living".; 7/18/10, 3:31 PM
GMay said...: Well played Sir.; 7/18/10, 4:11 PM
Bart Torvik said...: If this becomes an issue, I think the spin will be that Obama never said the individual mandate wasn't a "tax," he just said it wasn't a "tax increase."; 7/18/10, 4:13 PM
knox said...: This plus the expansive commerce clause means the Constitution is functionally dead.

Or, as the Democrats call it, "living".

Brill.; 7/18/10, 4:36 PM
Pastafarian said...: Bart has it right. They'll say that there was no tax like this before to increase; and if it's a new tax, it will save the tax payer as much in health care costs as it costs him in paying the tax/penalty.

Which is pure bullshit, of course.

First they say it's not a tax, now they say it is -- whichever is more convenient for them at the time, that's their truth.

They're just brazen goddamned liars and they don't even care if we know it.

I don't see many liberal commenters here defending this. Beth, aren't you a Democrat? What's your opinion of this sort of outright deception?

Ritzy Urban Legend, Alpha, garage -- do you have any defense of this?

Here's my prediction: Ritzy will state that Obama was justified in lying to us the same way that parents are justified in lying to their children when they're trying to shield them from an unpleasant truth, or something that they're too young to deal with. Because we're all just children next to liberal intellectual giants like him. As proof of his thesis, he'll compare the loincloth on my avatar to a member of GWAR.

Alpha will steer well clear of this thread. He's paid to comment on certain subjects and avoid others; and to use pre-approved talking points when commenting. And he does as he's told.

garage will point out how Republicans have lied in the past. garage considers tu quoque to be an advanced debating technique and not a logical fallacy.; 7/18/10, 4:36 PM
traditionalguy said...: All politicians lie to get elected. The stunning difference with Obama is his continual lying about everything just like he is only beginning to campaign. That tells us that Obama wants MORE than being a President of a successful Nation State. He wants credit for eliminating the USA as a player in the financial and linked military events coming up soon. The expiration date of Obama's claims of innocense are all coming at once. Only a state of denial by liberals in the Media has kept Obama from a swift impeachment. Meanwhile every foreign friend and every foreign enemy watches Obama's deeds and is in awe as they watch the death throes of the US economic might and Pax Americana.; 7/18/10, 4:50 PM
gk1 said...: You can't help but see a pattern whenever Obama proclaims something the opposite seems to happen every time. Stimulus now or we have 8% unemployment. Healthcare won't cost anyone anything. Offshore drilling is completely safe. If I didn't know any better, I'd say he doesn't know what he is talking about.; 7/18/10, 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I will no longer voluntarily pay my federal income taxes, until two things happen:

1) Timothy Geithner is arrested for felony tax evasion, and

2) ObamaCare is repealed.

I will not be forced to pay taxes while rich Democrats are able to evade them without penalty and I will not be forced to purchase products from Democrat Party campaign donors.

Until both of those things happen, I will not voluntarily pay my federal income taxes. (I might pay them if forced, but it won't be voluntarily).

If the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the individual mandate, then I will cease paying my federal income taxes either voluntarily or involuntarily and fight to the death if necessary.; 7/18/10, 5:10 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Why all the angst. Some of you voted for a man whose whole life was one3 big lie. He has never accomplished anything except winning elections- everyone except the Presidency was a fixed corrupt Chicago style election.

You voted for an empty suit and a compulsive liar. Now some of you people are defending the empty suit liar in chief.; 7/18/10, 6:35 PM
GMay said...: Hey New Hussein,

Could you give Tidy Righty some moby lessons? He's pretty bad; 7/18/10, 6:55 PM
Paul Kirchner said...: I love this from the article:

Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Do you hear that America? He absolutely rejects that notion,so we now have to sit down and shut up. I was thinking the other day that if Obama were the president of, say, Zimbabwe, he's be an improvement over what they've got. But then, maybe not. Maybe with unlimited power, he'd soon be slaughtering everyone who did not bow to his every whim, and building monuments to himself in every public square.; 7/18/10, 9:38 PM
Revenant said...: And yes, for our country, it turns out to be on par with having voted for Hitler in the 1930s.

Pogo, you've said a lot of idiotic things over the years but that's hands-down the dumbest of them all. The election of Obama is in no way comparable to Hitler's rise to power. Pull your head out of your ass and talk sense.

Criminey, you said you'd vote for him in 2012 if he's pitted against certain GOP candidates.

Huckabee is left-wing on economics and repugnant on social and scientific issues. If I'm going to be forced to live in a socialized America I'd prefer it be one that isn't run by the religious right, too.; 7/19/10, 4:36 AM
Opus One Media said...: Oh crap Ann. This again?

Don't you get it - that is with your paid for health insurance courtesy of the State of Wisconsin?

My brother and law and sister in law pay $1400 a month for the two of them. I(we) paid $22000 last year on health insurance and copays and deductibles.

Would you and your fellow buttheads get it that the system is broken?; 7/19/10, 4:37 AM
KCFleming said...: "The election of Obama is in no way comparable to Hitler's rise to power. Pull your head out of your ass and talk sense."

Over the top, it was.
False?
I wish. Nationalized industries, massive spending that can't be paid for, favoritism for corporate 'friends', anti-Israel, etc.

And Huckabee?
Seriously?
He couldn't establish "rule" from "the religious right" by any possible means you conjure. Ain't gonna happen. And his socialism is the old-style more-of-the-same descent into tyranny one inch at a time, not Obama's leap into the deep end.

Sometimes you let your atheism cloud your judgement. Favoring Obama after all he's done means your libertarianism is paper-thin.; 7/19/10, 6:38 AM
Severus7 said...: @ HDHouse

How much do you think you and your in-laws should pay for health insurance? How much do you think I should pay for your health insurance? Why?

And what does your comment have to do with the OP re tax v. mandate?; 7/19/10, 6:57 AM
Roger J. said...: When you hit your full retirement age and go on social security you will find your ss check is reduced by about 100 dollars a month for Medicare--Is that a tax? Or an insurance premium? Seems we may have at the very basic level a definitional problem--which, as one commenter noted above how SCOTUS appears to have defined taxation. I dont have any answer, and I dont even mind paying the tax or premium or whatever it may be called--when you are pushing 70 with cancer, its not even a bad deal for me--now my grandkids will probably think otherwise.; 7/19/10, 7:12 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Well Roger you paid into Medicare for 40 years or so yet they still want more of your money.; 7/19/10, 8:49 AM
Chase said...: My brother and law and sister in law pay $1400 a month for the two of them.

My wife and I the same ($1386). Seems to be a national average.

I(we) paid $22000 last year on health insurance and copays and deductibles.

We paid $19,322 with appendectomy copays.

Seriously - you are correct that the system is broken.

But anyone with common sense and half a brain can see that the ObamaCare Bill Passed will not lower premiums or improve care for those of us - including you and your family - that already have it.

Obamacare was designed for one primary reason - to make people feel better about "covering the uninsured". Everything else that was attached was necessary to pass it, most of it symbolic and completely unworkable, as we are going to see month by month.

This bald-faced lie - from the mouth of the President of the United States himself:"“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” - is but the first of many examples.; 7/19/10, 8:50 AM
KCFleming said...: Rev, sorry, it is not your atheism that clouds your judgement, but your tendency to become undone when religious folks run for office.

How else to explain preferring a fascist to a mere democratic socialist?

Though I suppose it all ends up in the smae hell-hole, sooner or later.; 7/19/10, 9:06 AM
KCFleming said...: And BTW, I have said things waaaaay dumber than that.
Way dumber.
So there.; 7/19/10, 9:07 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Pogo, you've said a lot of idiotic things over the years but that's hands-down the dumbest of them all. The election of Obama is in no way comparable to Hitler's rise to power

It is very comparable to the early rise of the National Socialist Party. Pull your head out of your ass and try to think.

Do a little research instead of reflexive knee jerk rejection of a perfectly plausable historical comparison.

Everyone thinks Hitler=Death Camps, but the early Hitler as a representative of the National Socialist Party was very popular, inspirational and came to power in a time of deep recession. The economic moves of Hitler and the National Socialist Party in the taking over of companies and restructuring of society have very strong similarities to what the Democrat Socialists are attempting to do now.

We are talking about Hitler and the National Socialists COMING into power. The techniques and tactics. Do some research. Google is your friend.

I might add that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.; 7/19/10, 9:12 AM
KCFleming said...: DBQ: Exactly what I was thinking.; 7/19/10, 9:46 AM
Roger J. said...: AJ Lynch--I take your point, but it was a ponzi scheme all along-I figured I paid for your parents medicare, and now its my turn :)

Were it me? never charge in me in the first place and let me take care of my own finances to take care of my own problems--alas, whats a libertarian to do with the mommy state. Had I all the money the feds have taken from me for SS/Medicare, I would have had a tidy nest egg--and I wouldnt be subsidizing the idiots who cant balance their own checkbooks. But I digress; 7/19/10, 9:52 AM
Roger J. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/19/10, 10:00 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: What ever supreme court case decides this issue, it could be a landmark decision if the health care penalty is upheld. If the federal government is allowed to levy a tax on you for not doing something, then the federal government has total absolute power over the property of any citizen and can do anything it wants to any "minority" group of people and disguise it as a tax.

Why can't the government tax you if you are not in a employees union, or why can't the government tax you if you do not eat the right foods, or why can't the government tax you for not celebrating a particular holiday, etc....; 7/19/10, 1:13 PM
Revenant said...: He couldn't establish "rule" from "the religious right" by any possible means you conjure.

I said "run by", not "rule". The President runs the government.

Ain't gonna happen. And his socialism is the old-style more-of-the-same descent into tyranny one inch at a time, not Obama's leap into the deep end.

Even assuming that was true, why would that be preferable? Why would I prefer a long, slow slide into tyranny over a sudden descent?

Sometimes you let your atheism cloud your judgement.

Pogo, you just got finished claiming that a man whose politics would have been firmly at home in the Franklin Roosevelt administration is essentially the same as Hitler. I'm uninterested in your opinion of other people's "cloudy judgment".

Favoring Obama after all he's done means your libertarianism is paper-thin.

Yes, sometimes I'm not perfectly libertarian. For example, I supported George Bush, who was horrible on most libertarian issues.

But both Obama and Huckabee are totalitarians in the original sense of believing there is no aspect of my life that is not the government's business. There is no libertarian reason to prefer one over the other; they differ only in how they think the government's management of our lives should be carried out.

but your tendency to become undone when religious folks run for office.

What tendency? I supported George Bush and I defended Sarah Palin. Who are these "religious folks" I've supposedly become "undone" over?; 7/19/10, 3:48 PM
Revenant said...: The economic moves of Hitler and the National Socialist Party in the taking over of companies and restructuring of society have very strong similarities to what the Democrat Socialists are attempting to do now.

If you subtract extreme nationalism, racism, religious bigotry, and militarism from National Socialism, all you're left with is... socialism. Ignorant lefties point to the Bush Administration's invasions of other countries, domestic surveillance, and imprisoning of enemies without trial and (correctly) point out that Hitler did the same thing so Bush=Hitler. It isn't any more intelligent when you and Pogo pull the same stunt.

It is also intellectually dishonest to say that you weren't talking about the death camps. That's why you and Pogo use the name "Hitler", to access that instinctive revulsion people have to the world's most famous practitioner of genocide. If you weren't trying for guilt by association you would cite FDR or Nixon or De Gaulle or one of countless other politicians who match the pattern you're describing.; 7/19/10, 3:56 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: It is also intellectually dishonest to say that you weren't talking about the death camps. That's why you and Pogo use the name "Hitler",

When discussing the early rise of National Socialism and the leader of that party, just who do you suggest we reference instead? Churchill, Neville Chamberlin? It would be like trying to discuss the Crusades without mentioning the Pope or Catholic Church.

Sheesh.

If you subtract extreme nationalism, racism, religious bigotry, and militarism from National Socialism, all you're left with is... socialismz,

You do realize that the early years of the Nazi's and "he whose name shall not be uttered", didn't include all of those elements at one time or in the form that we saw in the later, full fledged WWII years.

The movement started out, in the minds of many in Germany, as a resonable alternative to the terrible financial conditions that the country was in. The fact that it later morphed into a more malignant form, it just a matter of slow mission creep.

You don't think this can happen again ever in history? Think again. And take a look at the mission creep in the Obama administration.; 7/19/10, 4:20 PM
KCFleming said...: For Pete's sake, Rev.

I said Obama would be as destructive to the US as Hitler was to Germany.

Hitler was a fascist. Obama is promoting fascist policies. The problem with all statists is their policies inevitably lead to state murder. Every time.

Hitler wan't even Hitler in 1930.; 7/19/10, 7:12 PM
Revenant said...: When discussing the early rise of National Socialism and the leader of that party, just who do you suggest we reference instead? Churchill, Neville Chamberlin?

If you want to discuss the rise of National Socialism, sure. If you want to discuss the rise of Barack Obama, not so much. Oh, and by the way -- Churchill also came to power during a time of economic and political unrest and proceeded to nationalize key industries. Lots of people have done that sort of thing. FDR did it. Nixon did it. The rise of the Nazis is a lousy allegory for Obama because the dissimilarities vastly outnumber the similarities.

You do realize that the early years of the Nazi's and "he whose name shall not be uttered", didn't include all of those elements at one time or in the form that we saw in the later, full fledged WWII years.

First of all, if you want to confine yourself strictly to the early years of the Nazi party then you can't cite Obama's nationalization of key industries as Nazi-like. The early Nazis didn't advocate nationalization.

Secondly, your claim that the early Nazi Party "didn't include all of those elements" (extreme nationalism, racism, religious bigotry and militarism) is complete nonsense. Those were the four constants of Nazi ideology from day one. Their economic platform shifted over the years, but those four things were constant. But by all means, if you want to stick to your claim you are invited to state which of those four things they didn't embrace, and on which dates.; 7/19/10, 8:32 PM
Revenant said...: For Pete's sake, Rev. I said Obama would be as destructive to the US as Hitler was to Germany.

Uh huh. Wake me after he kills his first million Americans.; 7/19/10, 8:51 PM
KCFleming said...: That won't take long; the new health care plan will see to that pretty quickly.; 7/19/10, 9:12 PM
Revenant said...: That won't take long; the new health care plan will see to that pretty quickly.

Good grief, Obama Derangement Syndrome is just as pathetic as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Even if one were insane enough to think that Obamacare will kill a million people "pretty quickly" (or at all), Obama still wouldn't be in danger of doing as much damage to this country as Hitler did to his. If, over the next fifteen years, Obama killed 30 million Americans AND destroyed tens of trillions of dollars of factories, infrastructure, and housing AND disbanded the US military AND allowed China to militarily occupy everything east of the Mississippi River for the next 45 years, he still wouldn't be quite as bad for this country as Hitler was for Germany.

I'll leave it at that, before you feel the urge to start accusing Obama of being a Venusian invader here to soften us up for his alien masters. That's about the only thing you could accuse him of at this point that would be dumber than what you've already claimed.; 7/20/10, 3:19 AM
KCFleming said...: "Even if one were insane enough to think that Obamacare will kill a million people "pretty quickly" (or at all)"

You don't seem to know much about how nationalized health care works.

Denial of care is the primary method of cost control.

And if one can only be called another Hitler by exactly copying his plan and every event that occurred in his regime and along the exact same timeline, well, no, ya got me, Rev, Obama is not an exact copy of Hitler.

Even if he grows a little mustache.; 7/20/10, 7:35 AM