November 10th, 2016

Election 2016: it all started with Obamacare

Some say that Trump won the election because Hillary was a terrible candidate. And that certainly had more than a little to do with it.

Some say it was mostly a class thing—that is, a white underclass thing, and that Trump knew how to appeal to this group that had felt abandoned. Also true. But that group was hardly the only one voting for Trump.

I say that it was Obamacare that was the turning point, although it took a while to play out. Fact is, a government (and a party, for that matter) can’t go on forever without being responsive to the will of the people. That’s what “elitism” is about, really, not about money or education or race. Unresponsiveness.

So, it began with Obamacare, which was a Democratic endeavor, and the Democrats’ failure to understand or to heed the lessons of the election of Scott Brown, a man chosen in the blue blue state of Masschusetts for the express purpose of stopping Obamacare.

When Brown was elected, you may recall that the Democrats didn’t listen. I can’t seem to find the articles right now, but I recall that they ignored the warning, saying it was an artifact of a special election in which most people didn’t vote.

After that it was full steam ahead for Obamacare through reconciliation, since now they couldn’t pass it any other way. After Obamacare was passed, Brown ultimately couldn’t sustain his own senator status, either. But in the end, the fairly moderate Republican known as Scott Brown ended up supporting Donald Trump this year.

The Democrats treated the passage of Obamacare as a huge victory for them. But they forgot that tremendously transformative legislative efforts—Medicare, Social Security—do best when the American people are behind them. And by “American people,” I don’t just mean a plurality or a bare and razor-thin majority, I mean a clear majority with support and input from both parties. That could have happened with Obamacare if the Democrats were willing to meet the Republicans in the middle and design something that had elements of what each party wanted.

Instead, it was Democrats’ choice to pass a bill that was already unpopular in its details, that would affect a vast number of Americans in a very up-close and personal way, and to do it by lying and by unusual parliamentary procedures. Then it was Democratic politicians’ choice to say—and for many of them to actually believe, I think—that an unwieldy system with a poor design was going to work well enough, or their propaganda was going to be successful enough, that people would grow to love it or at least like it.

That’s not what happened. Instead, the Tea Party movement began. But the anger wasn’t just limited to the Tea Party. It was widespread, and it was reinforced in other ways by other actions by politicians.

The election of Donald Trump was determined by many things, but I think the largest thing was that anger, an anger which had crystallized in the story of Obamacare’s passage. It is fitting that the legislation has Obama’s name on it in popular usage (although not officially), because it was with his election that the Democratic Party decided that ignoring the will of the people wouldn’t come back to haunt them.

Now it has come back to haunt them. One of the factors I don’t hear too much about in the election of Donald Trump was that not long before Election Day a lot of people read that their Obamacare premiums were about to rise an average of 22%. This was not a fact that was susceptible to being propagandized away. It was not an abstraction; it was and is a stark and very personal reality.

You might call it the revenge of Scott Brown.

So if you’re going to pass transformative legislation without the people behind you, you better make sure that reality doesn’t rear its ugly head someday.

[NOTE: This ignoring of the people was hardly limited to Obamacare, by the way. Illegal immigration was another important example. But Obamacare came earlier, and the announcement of the hike in premiums right before the election almost certainly fanned the flames at a crucial time.]

46 Responses to “Election 2016: it all started with Obamacare”

  1. Big Maq Says:

    Huxley reminded me of the obamacare premium announcements.

    They just came out in the preceding week or so – maybe hardly enough time to be reflected in the polls,

    But, if, like and acquaintance, they face 58% increase for a high deductible HMO plan, then surely that would be a huge reminder of what clinton would mean to the white working class folks who’d be most affected by this.

  2. Big Maq Says:

    Yes, Scott Brown’s election was the canary in the mine.

    After all, he came from dem dominated MA, AND MA was a state that experienced a similar plan (Romneycare).

    This is the type of thing I worry the GOP might also err on – forcing major change without gaining public support beforehand.

    Winning a presidential election with fewer votes than in 2012, and with fewer votes vs clinton does not make for a mandate.

  3. Sharon W Says:

    Neo, I never have time to look into this kind of thing, but one of the first reports on exit polling is that people were looking for “a strong leader”. Not sure if it is factual, but it is much more general than say Obamacare or immigration (specific issues).

  4. Big Maq Says:

    To reinforce my point wrt there not being a “mandate” for all the changes trump may want, even the much venerated (around here) VDH has this to say…

    “And if you think that Trump carried down-ballot Republicans to victory, think again. He undoubtedly helped secure victories in states such as Indiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, but in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Wisconsin, the Republican Senate victor won more votes than Trump. In close losses like Nevada and (perhaps) New Hampshire, the GOP Senate candidate also out-polled Trump.”

  5. Ymarsakar Says:

    Polls are designed to manipulate public reactions, not reflect them.

    is that people were looking for “a strong leader”.

    The search for Kings. The tribe of Israel often demanded of a King, from God, even though they were told the costs of it.

    It does not mean the people want to restore the Compact/Covenant with God.

  6. Brian E Says:

    To reinforce my point wrt there not being a “mandate” for all the changes trump may want, even the much venerated (around here) VDH has this to say… –Big Maq

    He ran on a definite set of policy objectives. I’ve listed some of them here prior to the election. It’s hard to argue that if he tries and implement them there will be some sort of backlash.
    I would say the voters agreed with his agenda. That’s the mandate.

    I think you are right about the short time frame he has to get the economy moving. If by 2020 the middle class doesn’t see the economy moving in the right direction, he may be a one term president. Now how much leeway the voters will give him– since he will be opposed by chamber of commerce/wall street Republicans is unkown.

    Some of his agenda, reworking trade agreements, he might peel off democrat support, since a few/some/many Republicans will fight that. I’ve read he has executive authority to withdraw from treaties, but he would be well served to get support for that.

  7. Big Maq Says:

    @Brian E – well, yes, he did win so he does have the opportunity to implement what he campaigned on.

    The problem is in doing what the dems did wrt obamacare.

    obama had a much greater claim to a “mandate” than trump has, and yet it didn’t help make, in the public’s mind, the ACA “legitimate” (i.e. something they popularly wanted). Thus, with any failures from the legislation, it becomes and electoral albatross.

    Now, depending on how much trump actually expands executive action, whatever he does might well be reversed, especially if we see the reverse of this 2016 and dems carry all.

  8. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    neo, I think the ACA was an inflection point. Had it gone well, it would have been just a blip in the graph. But it did not go well, giving Republicans an opportunity to remind people that it was entirely a Democrat program, that it was rammed through in a shady way, and we later learned was intentionally misrepresented to sell it to the American people.

    I am thrilled that Hillary lost, but Trump did not have coattails here in NH. He likely cost Ayotte her seat.

  9. brdavis9 Says:

    Bingo.

    My take is only slightly different.

    …the anger over TARP – and the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the crony capitalists – fostered the rise of the Tea Party.

    The Tea Party primed the pump for the reaction against the blatant misuse of political power by the Democrats with Obamacare.

    And THAT brought us to 2016.

    I’m not sure the elites are listening yet, but I’m pretty sure at least their sleep is troubled.

    Because there’s one thing we learned from and agree with Obama about: Elections have consequences.

    How to do you like it now, Mr. President?

    (Although I prefer the older iteration: “events, my dear boy, events” lol.)

  10. The Other Gary Says:

    The election of Donald Trump was determined by many things, but I think the largest thing was that anger, an anger which had crystallized in the story of Obamacare’s passage.

    I agree that Obamacare was the flagship calamity in the disastrous 8-year reign of the imperious King Barack, aka Emperor Pen-and-Phone — so f*ck you if you don’t like whatever policies I shove down your throat.

    Here’s a question for Neo or anyone else who can answer it:
    Given the negative effects on Hillary and the Dems of health insurance rate hikes, why didn’t Obama and the Dems find a way to squelch the announcements (of cost increases) until AFTER the election? Was this something that was just beyond their control — even with the unstinting aid of the MSM?

  11. Wally Mellish Says:

    As I remember it, Obama did not campaign on Obamacare at all. No mention. Then, after a big win, out from under it’s rock it came.

  12. R.C. Says:

    Um, please keep in mind that the Tea Party was not started in opposition to Obamacare.

    It was a revolt against the supposedly-conservative G.W.Bush bailing people out in a top-down way rather than (depending on who you asked) a bottom-up way or a not-at-all way. Remember the Rick Santelli rant and how the conservative base talks about “moral hazard.”

    The opposition-to-elites and the feeling that elected officials were selling out the basic principles and ideas they’d been elected to defend in favor of mutual assistance between wealthy elites started there.

    Everything else you say is solid, but that came across as supporting the misunderstanding that the Tea Party was all about Obama. This, in turn, is used to support the lie that the Tea Party was motivated by racism. Attention to historical detail helps to undercut that myth.

  13. Daniel in Brookline Says:

    Instalanche!

  14. Scottie Says:

    That’s what “elitism” is about, really, not about money or education or race. Unresponsiveness.

    I think it is better defined as dripping condescension and utter contempt more than unresponsiveness.

  15. David H Dennis Says:

    Trump is pragmatic, and not particularly ideological. Note that he wants to save Social Security and Medicare in their current forms. That is certainly not what most of us want, but it indicates the kind of leader he is likely to be.

    I think he might just pull off health insurance reform, because I think he could be competent enough as a negotiator to actually get both sides behind a compromise health care plan. It probably won’t be what we want, but I’m betting it will be a lot better than what we have today.

    Again, I’m not sure how much I will like what he creates but I would not be at all surprised if he is more competent to pull it off than Obama was. Remember, Obama expressed contempt for pretty much everyone in Congress except those who supported his plan. I don’t think Trump, master negotiator, would make that mistake. He has deep experience negotiating successfully with people who are downright hostile to him.

  16. Robert Hanson Says:

    “the Obamacare premium announcements…just came out in the preceding week or so”.

    Exit polls indicate that maybe as much as 25% of those who voted for Trump made up their minds in the last week before the election. So yeah, that was most likely a major factor in Trump’s favor.

    But it’s not just the premium increases, it’s far worse than that. A number of health care companies recently announced that they were no longer going to offer ACA policies next year. Leaving many folks scrambling to find a new provider. And in some states that means there is only one provider left, so no ability to choose anything at all.

    It might be true that the average premium increase is 22%, but in some states it’s several times that high. Leaving many people unable to use their incredibly expensive insurance for anything less than a major health crisis due to annual deductibles as high as $5,000 per person.

    I also read on Yahoo that some 20 percent of doctors are leaving the ACA programs next year.

    Instapundit today has video of the 36 times Obama promised “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”. (sic)

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

  17. John Says:

    Good article but to pick a nit, you misstate the history of medicare and the great society. Those programs were not supported by a majority of the voters, much less a clear one. They were passed with some Republican votes but they were not supported by a majority of the public at the time. They only passed because of the freakishly large majorities the Democrats obtained in 1964. The Democrats suffered major losses in the following midterm election of 1966 primarily because the public was not happy about the great society.

    Those programs unlike Obamacare later become popular for two reasons. First, they started out relatively small and thus did not generate the sustained backlash that Obamacare has. Most people were not effected by them immediately and thus opposition faded away as the public’s attention turned elsewhere. Second, they were programs that gave people money and services, unlike Obamacare that rearranged everyone’s health insurance.

    The Democrats and too many beltway pundits on the right bought into the idea that Obamacare would somehow become popular and put the Democrats into a permanent majority. That was to say the least insane. They thought it would because medicare and SS had become popular with time. As we have found out and they should have known had they not lost their minds was that Obamacare is in no way analogous to those other things.

  18. Big Maq Says:

    @Robert Hanson – yes, agree.

    obamacare reality hit everyone (who was a constituency target for trump) just on the eve of the election, as if to put an exclamation point on the obama years.

    obamacare may not have been the catalyst for the Tea Party or whatever became of that, but it was the most proximately visible to those already unhappy.

  19. Angie Says:

    My friend is a self-made man who owns two successful businesses. He also grew up a Democrat, with his dad being a union man.

    Day after the election, he told me that his health insurance premium doubled in 8 years. That his son’s insurance has got so bad that my friend has to give him money to help out. Then he said, “I bet a lot of people got their renewals then went out to vote.”

    And yeah, he voted for Trump.

  20. Nick Says:

    The problem with exit polls is that they’re polls. We treat them with extra respect because they’re surveys of some people who actually voted, but make no mistake, they’re prone to many of the same kinds of errors as other surveys. First of all, we treat their demographic information as gospel. Why? We don’t know exactly how many black people voted, or how many Evangelical women voted for Trump. There’s no way we could correctly calculate the former, and as for the latter, ballots are still secret. Secondly, the detailed information on exit polls can easily be rationalization rather than rationality. You’re asking people why they did something. That’s like asking a newlywed what he loves about his wife. He wuvvs everything about her! (She’s in earshot, right?) People describe their motives for doing something afterwards differently than they would have beforehand.

  21. Ymarsakar Says:

    It was a revolt against the supposedly-conservative G.W.Bush bailing people out in a top-down way rather than (depending on who you asked) a bottom-up way or a not-at-all way. Remember the Rick Santelli rant and how the conservative base talks about “moral hazard.”

    Are you referring to TARP? That was Bush II obeying the mandate Americans gave to Hussein. Since Hussein was going to take over, Bush II asked him what to do, and hen Bush II did it in a way that wouldn’t interfere with Hussein’s policies once Hussein was in power.

    Did Clinton do that for Bush II? No. But that was the kind of person America elected in 2000 and 2008.

  22. neo-neocon Says:

    John:

    Somewhere I have the draft of a post I wrote years ago (can’t find it at the moment) researching the history of those bills. My recollection of my research is that, contrary to what you are asserting, they had the support of the majority of Americans.

    I will look for that draft when I have more time.

  23. Bob_CA Says:

    Anyone here care to bet whether the Senate Democrats will be able to filibuster successfully any attempt to even modify Obamacare?

    The best the Republicans may be able to get through will be to defund some of the aspects like the Medicaid expansion in appropriations bills. But I am not so sure about that since some Republican governors like Kasich of Ohio and Jan Brewer of Arizona worked with the Democrats to ram through the expansion over the vociferous objections of the Republicans in their legislature. Would the weak sisters, Collins and Murkowski, go along with this?

    My money would be on nothing much happening with Obamacare. That will lead to more frustration by the base when McConnell goes out to explain that not only do the Republicans need to control the Presidency, House and the Senate but also need a filibuster proof majority to get anything important done.

  24. Ann Says:

    Re public support for Medicare at the time of its passing — here’s what Gallup says:

    In a survey from October 1964, sponsored by Potomac Associates, Gallup asked Americans the following question: “Congress has been considering a compulsory medical insurance program covering hospital and nursing home care for the elderly. This Medicare program would be financed out of increased Social Security taxes. In general, do you approve or disapprove of this program?” Sixty-one percent of Americans approved, 31% disapproved, and 8% didn’t know. A Gallup Poll conducted that same month found similar results, with 57% approving and 31% disapproving. Less than a year later, President Johnson signed the Medicare program into law, with former President Harry S. Truman at his side.

  25. Ann Says:

    Trump’s transition website has now posted this brief look at his health care plans:

    It is clear to any objective observer that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has resulted in rapidly rising premiums and deductibles, narrow networks, and health insurance, has not been a success. A Trump Administration will work with Congress to repeal the ACA and replace it with a solution that includes Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and returns the historic role in regulating health insurance to the States. The Administration’s goal will be to create a patient-centered healthcare system that promotes choice, quality and affordability with health insurance and healthcare, and take any needed action to alleviate the burdens imposed on American families and businesses by the law.

    To maximize choice and create a dynamic market for health insurance, the Administration will work with Congress to enable people to purchase insurance across state lines. The Administration also will work with both Congress and the States to re-establish high-risk pools – a proven approach to ensuring access to health insurance coverage for individuals who have significant medical expenses and who have not maintained continuous coverage.

    The Administration recognizes that the problems with the U.S. health care system did not begin with – and will not end with the repeal of – the ACA. With the assistance of Congress and working with the States, as appropriate, the Administration will act to:

    –Protect individual conscience in healthcare
    –Protect innocent human life from conception to natural death, including the most defenseless and those Americans with disabilities
    –Advance research and development in healthcare
    –Reform the Food and Drug Administration, to put greater focus on the need of patients for new and innovative medical products
    –Modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation – and beyond
    –Maximize flexibility for States in administering Medicaid, to enable States to experiment with innovative methods to deliver healthcare to our low-income citizens

  26. donkatsu Says:

    Bob,

    As I recall, the ACA has a number of poison pill provisions in it regarding modification or repeal of various clauses. There are some supermajority rules, I believe.

    And at the time I had the idea that repeal or modification also had to be done only on business days in October 2018 evenly divisible by 3 and between 19h and 22h, but only if exactly 642 stars are visible in the Western quadrant. I may have a few details wrong, but someone will have to look at that bill to determine how deep its weedy roots grow.

  27. Big Maq Says:

    “Anyone here care to bet whether the Senate Democrats will be able to filibuster successfully any attempt to even modify Obamacare?” – Bob CA

    I don’t see that they have a choice but to accept changes, as obamacare is probably seen as broken by much of the electorate – especially the constituency that trump won over (a group the dems say obamacare was supposed to help). Any who are coming up in two years will surely suffer if they obstruct.

    One thing missing in the trump site quote Ann provided is if there is any provision for pre-existing conditions – this is a HUGE issue, I bet, for many in that group, and most who participate in the ACA program. This might be something the dems could dig their heels in on.

  28. Big Maq Says:

    @donkatsu – thanks for the laugh! 😉

  29. charles Says:

    I agree with everything said, Neo; but, I also think it goes beyond “ignoring” people; so many of us are tired of being insulted.

    “cops acting stupidly” or “bitterly clinging to guns and religion” or being a “deplorable” or “first time I’m proud of my country”

    Or watching the White House being used to host the likes of Al not-too-Sharpton or Jessie Hymietown-Jackson and America’s allies treated with contempt.

    Or listening to the President praise the likes of a thug Trayvon Martin or an overdosed has-been celebrity Whitney Houston; yet, not speak one kind word about Shirley Temple Black’s death.

    Yea, the being “ignored” is bad; but, the insults were a factor as well.

  30. donkatsu Says:

    Big Mac,
    There is an article from LA Times, which my anti-malware program will not let me finish, that enumerates the various poison pills in the ACA. Essentially many provisions are interlinked, and repeal of one will trigger changes in others.

    It is like a bad computer model, where parts that can be accessed cannot be either verified or validated (true and predictive) and so error-prone that any change outside the authorized parameters causes the program to blow up.

    Kind of reminds me of the global warming models that I used years ago.

  31. CV Says:

    Trump won the Catholic vote by seven points, and a lot of that can be attributed to Obamacare:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442060/donald-trump-won-catholic-vote-election-night

    “… Trump’s winning over of American Catholics in this election likely has less to do with Trump himself than it has to do with the poor treatment Catholics have received at the hands of the Obama administration and progressive elites. While many American Catholics have shown willingness in the past to support Democratic candidates regardless of their positions on social issues, perhaps the Obama administration and its progressive allies have taken things a bit too far. For example, on the very same day that Obama was inaugurated into his second term as president, his Health and Human Services department announced a mandate to be tacked onto Obamacare, requiring all employers to provide employees with contraceptive coverage, regardless of religious beliefs. His administration went on to enforce this mandate stringently against all groups, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, and evangelical business owners such as those who run Hobby Lobby. Throughout this process, the Obama administration showed little to no interest in compromise, developing a half-hearted method of “exempting” narrow classes of religious groups from the mandate, but even this exemption still forced countless religious people and groups to be involved in acts they believed to be immoral and unconscionable. Furthermore, this year’s Democratic party platform enshrined a plank vowing to dissolve the Hyde Amendment, which has been tacked onto spending bills since the 1970s in order to prevent taxpayer money from funding abortion. Some Catholics might be willing to turn a blind eye to a candidate’s support for the “right to choose”; less are willing to accept a government-led initiative to force them to pay for women’s exercise of that right. Catholics might feel similarly off-put by Clinton’s unilateral defense of partial-birth abortion, as well, and her deceptive tactics in doing so. It is worth noting that Clinton’s addition of Virginia senator Tim Kaine — a self-identified Roman Catholic — to her ticket did nothing to pull her over the threshold with Catholic voters. This is a testament either to the general lack of voter enthusiasm for vice-presidential candidates or to Catholic voters’ lack of identification with Kaine, who holds some positions that contradict central tenets of Church teaching…”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442060/donald-trump-won-catholic-vote-election-night

  32. Big Maq Says:

    A sure sign obamacare was a major factor… CNN scoured the media and came up with 24 reasons why trump one, and not one of them mentions obamacare…
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/why-donald-trump-won/

  33. Big Maq Says:

    “why trump won” – duh!

  34. Big Maq Says:

    ““cops acting stupidly” or “bitterly clinging to guns and religion” or being a “deplorable” or “first time I’m proud of my country”” – charles

    I heard those too.

    I hope trump as POTUS is miles better, but, thing is, his campaign was also bad in the other direction.

    Let’s hope for a fresh start.

  35. Big Maq Says:

    Neither did Politico mention obamacare in their examination of why the polls were wrong…
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/polling-election-what-went-wrong-231207

  36. Bob_CA Says:

    BigMaq says:
    “I don’t see that they have a choice but to accept changes, as obamacare is probably seen as broken by much of the electorate – especially the constituency that trump won over (a group the dems say obamacare was supposed to help). Any who are coming up in two years will surely suffer if they obstruct.”

    Losing their office has not stopped the Democrats from defending Obamacare. We have all read lists of their losses since it passed. I don’t have the numbers in front of me but we know they have lost 12 senate seats, from 60 to 48, gone from 29 governorships to less than 20, lost many state legislatures and now the presidency.

    See also this article:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/10/obamacare-supporters-vow-total-war-to-defend-the-law/

  37. Bob_CA Says:

    BTW, the article I linked posits that McConnell and the Senate Republicans have the backbone to invoke the nuclear option and end the filibuster on Obamacare. It points out that all that can be done through the reconciliation process is to stop funding some specific parts of the bill. That would leave in place the 10s of thousands of insurance company regulations that are in large part responsible for the out of control premium increases.

    Despite that, I think that enough of the Republicans like Collins and Murkowski that I mentioned before and those like John McCain and Lindsey Graham that love to “reach across the aisle” to poke their thumb in the eye of their fellow Republicans will not support the nuclear option that it cannot be invoked.

  38. Big Maq Says:

    The dems can “vow” to fight obamacare all they want.

    The political reality for THEM, is that a large part of their constituency (the part trump won over, the part that did NOT vote for clinton) are NOT being served will by the policy.

    They are FAR better off fighting for certain provisions to be part of the new plan vs fighting for obamacare itself.

    With that background, makes NO sense whatsoever for McCain or Graham to make their stand on behalf of obamacare in their “reach across the aisle” just to “poke their thumb in the eye” of Republicans.

  39. Gringo Says:

    charles
    I agree with everything said, Neo; but, I also think it goes beyond “ignoring” people; so many of us are tired of being insulted….“cops acting stupidly” or “bitterly clinging to guns and religion” or being a “deplorable” or “first time I’m proud of my country”

    While I agree with you that these belong more in the “insult” category than in the “being ignored” category, I suspect that most of us who saw these as insults never voted for Obama.

    I was born and raised in a rural area, and a third of my cousins live in rural areas. As such, I considered Obama’s “bitter clingers” remark an insult the moment I became aware of it. But had Obama never uttered that statement, I was still not going to vote for him.

  40. DNW Says:

    Bob_CA Says:
    November 11th, 2016 at 1:14 am …

    Losing their office has not stopped the Democrats from defending Obamacare. We have all read lists of their losses since it passed. I don’t have the numbers in front of me but we know they have lost 12 senate seats, from 60 to 48, gone from 29 governorships to less than 20, lost many state legislatures and now the presidency.

    See also this article:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/10/obamacare-supporters-vow-total-war-to-defend-the-law/

    Good observation. Obamacare was designed as a wealth and social power transfer tax. It was intended to bleed some so as to underwrite others. And, by bleeding the marginally surviving, or the frugally hopeful of that critical 6 to 8 thousand dollars per annum, to reduce them to economically to a dwindling and tractable population.

    Socialism, that is to sat the assumption that we all “belong” (in the possessive sense) to humanity, and that what humanity wants is defined by what the manipulative vanguard says it wants – or deserves – has the status of a metaphysical/moral principle among the no limits, by any means necessary, left.

    Someone in straightened or very modest economic circumstances, but in good health and prudent, may, with careful planning and saving manage to accumulate for some number of years and then leverage their way, and on their own, out of the situation.

    Tax them another 6 to 8 thousand a year, and give them virtually nothing in return for the money, and in 4 years you have deprived them of any opportunity for savings toward capital accumulation: no new car, no small business start-up, no movement to a better environment. All are results which under progressivism, are desired ends.

    One of the more shocking things in listening to disappointed Democrats talk, was just how fully developed, blatant, unapologetic, and morally entitled was their population replacement socialism “plan” (or anticipated trajectory) for America.

    Listening to them, they sounded like spoiled children who were hoping that their hated parents would finally die and get out of the way so they could finally consume and sell off what remained of their substance.

    And what shocked me also was that so many compassionate Republicans could not see it themselves.

    I guess if no one is actively robbing or shooting at you at the moment, you just don’t see the problem.

    There is no making nice with progressives and their clients. They don’t want freedom for themselves; they want you dead.

  41. Frog Says:

    DNW:
    Further to your good points are Rush Limbaugh’s comments, especially for all you non-listeners.
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/10/i_m_getting_nervous_about_all_these_calls_for_trump_to_unify_with_the_losers

  42. Big Maq Says:

    “Tax them another 6 to 8 thousand a year, and give them virtually nothing in return for the money, and in 4 years you have deprived them of any opportunity for savings toward capital accumulation:” – DNW

    Very true of obamacare. AND, the plan they will receive for 2017 is probably not much better than the “lousy” plans they had before the ACA was implemented.

    Doubt that an HSA plan is going to be a good replacement for the folks who couldn’t afford the subsidized premiums, particularly in the rust belt. I also imagine there are a lot of “pre-existing conditions” to be found among them.

    Remains to be seen what trump and Congress settle on and how they address this aspect. Not clear from the campaign info. A little clearer on Ryan’s proposal.

  43. Pri X. Zistingconditions Says:

    I say that it was Obamacare that was the turning point, although it took a while to play out.

    A theory about political retribution that requires you to skip over the guy whose name is actually IN Obamacare may have a flaw or two.

    Especially since Obama not only won in 2012, but would almost certainly have beaten Trump OR Clinton in 2016. Another four years to “play out”?

  44. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove Says:

    […] Neo-neocon notes where Election 2016 all started […]

  45. Big Maq Says:

    Still noticing that most in the media are not mentioning obamacare whatsoever wrt its impact on this election.

  46. TommyJay Says:

    brdavis and RC are close on the Tea Party.

    It is true that the not-yet Tea Partiers hated TARP. But they were launched by Santelli’s rant in Feb. 09. The first big policy announcement from the Obama White House had just been made. And some HARP or HARP like program was announced where the tax payer was going to bail-out people with deeply under-water mortgages so they could stay in their homes. Santelli asked “How many of you want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage?” Check it out. That launched the Tea Party.

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/19/santelli-remembers-famous-tea-party-rant-6-years-later/

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge