Obama changes the rules—again—to benefit Democrats in next year’s election
The imperial president whose party is nevertheless subject to those pesky little formalities known as “elections” changes the ACA rules again in order to delay 2015 insurance enrollments until after the election.
However:
…[T]his misses the real risk for the White House, which isn’t in the individual market in 2015.The people in that market will have been battered all year with higher premiums and ridiculous deductibles, and another round of escalation in both will only have a limited shock value. The risk is in the employer-provided group market, where costs will either skyrocket or employees will get kicked out of their coverage and forced into the individual market. Those decisions will come in the late summer or early fall, as businesses have to prepare 2015 budgets in those time frames. By the time the standard October 1 open enrollment date hits for those consumers, the enormous impact of ObamaCare will be well known ”” even if they can’t access price information in the individual exchanges. When tens of millions of Americans get handed huge price increases or get pushed out of their group coverage altogether at that point, the outrage and political meltdown will dwarf whatever pricing changes take place in the individual markets.
Still, Obama must think it’s worth a try, and that the risk is minimal or non-existent. After all, who except the right will squawk about what he’s done or even pay attention to it at all? And every little bit of delay helps; it certainly helped in 2012 because he probably could not have been re-elected if the election were to happen today.
The only thing is—it may not help nearly enough.
The rule change gives insurance companies more time, which they don’t necessarily need to use. He can’t prevent an insurance company from finishing the calculations and sending out notices at any time before the new deadline. If the economics make clear to the insurance companies Obama has been a bad bet – and it will – their incentive to hold off notifying customers for his benefit will be wiped away.
I always ask conservative voters what are they going to do about the 5-10 million fake votes the Democrats will use to balance out an election against a Republican?
No answer as yet. Not sure there is one. The Tea Party might have been able to negate the grassroots astro turfing of SEIU, ACORN, etc, but Obama’s regime used their Iron Fist expressly to deny that strategic option.
Ymarsakar, 1:02 pm — “I always ask conservative voters what are they going to do about the 5-10 million fake votes the Democrats will use to balance out an election against a Republican?”
Yes, exactly. No answer. Ain’t none. The fix is already in.
The imperial president whose party,,,,
of what soviets called a sovereign democracy…
duh…
he is already doing despotic things outside lex rex
lex rex is dead, rex lex is reborn…
now, when do we get the contracts to build ovens?
all the turkeys are prepared to crawl in on their own and close the door on themselves… saves time, money, protest, effort and guilt on those that remain.
(do note that the knockout game got no media play till they attacked half a dozen jewsih men in brooklyn. the quotes were its knockout jews game. so now its in the press every day… funny… i guess as a group, they have shown that the regard they wish those had for them, they do not have for others… otherwise the quotes would be different and the press would not wait five years to paint whats been going on as something suddenly new)
in case you havent noticed, we paralleled germany leading up to wwii perfectly… exfept most are too ignorant to know the real details to know it matches so much…
from father coughlin social justice
jew hatred, christian hatred, islamic love
nationalizing everything liek hitler, same industries and even went so far as to dictate what cars and things to make… like volkswagons were.
lying to the public
a tas like news service replacing the press corp
and on and on.
we are already in a dictatorship
you just never been in one to know
now all that remains is to finish closing the doors
if you dont think so, then you let me know what you think would turn it around… reember, the key players in themilitary that might have stepped forward were removed. a national military made up of medical corps who have the same ranks and can give orders to the regular military (thanks to changes).
where did those billions go?
what about all those bullets?
back when this all started and the block talked this part was preventable… now there is nothing to stop it. nothign at all.. dont matter the people change their mind or wake up, as most of their planning was not to get here, but to prevent reversing… ie. you dont move your bishop unless its guarded by something els.e
According to Surkov, sovereign democracy is:
a society’s political life where the political powers, their authorities and decisions are decided and controlled by a diverse nation for the purpose of reaching material welfare, freedom and fairness by all citizens, social groups and nationalities, by the people that formed it
Sovereign Democracy in Russia was realised in the form of a dominant-party system which was put into place in 2007 when as a result of the Russian legislative election of 2007 the political party United Russia, headed by president Vladimir Putin, without forming a government, formally became the leading and guiding force in Russian society not unlike the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(1) “limited, not responsible, political pluralism”; that is, constraints on political institutions and groups (such as legislatures, political parties, and interest groups),
(2) a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat “easily recognizable societal problems” such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
(3) neither “intensive nor extensive political mobilization” and constraints on the mass public (such as repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of antiregime activity) and
(4) “formally ill-defined” executive power, often shifting or vague
— Juan Linz 1964 description of authoritarianism
Examples of authoritarian states:
Examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian:
Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko
Vietnam under the Vietnamese Communist Party
North Korea under the Korean Workers’ Party
China under the Chinese Communist Party
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Hun Sen
Syria under Hafez and Bashar al-Assad
Iran under Supreme Leaders Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei
Laos under the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party
Armenia under Serzh Sargsyan
Burkina Faso under Blaise Compaore
Cuba under Fidel and Raéºl Castro
Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud
Bahrain under the House of Khalifa
Examples of states which were historically authoritarian:
Burma from a 1962 coup until a transition to democracy beginning in 2011.
South Africa from the end of colonial rule until the formal end of apartheid in 1994. [then back again they forgot to mention]
South Korea from the early 1970s until a transition to democracy in 1987.
Spain under Francisco Franco from 1936 to 1975, when the Spanish transition to democracy began after Franco’s death. [then back again after the train bombings]
Taiwan (known as the Republic of China until 1949) from the 228 Incident of 1947 until a transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Libya under Muammar Gaddafi until his deposition and death in the end of the Libyan civil war.
Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.
Brazil during both the Estado Novo period under Getéºlio Vargas (1937—1945) and under military government from a 1964 coup until a transition to democracy in the early and mid-1980s.
Argentina under the Argentine Revolution period of military rule (1966—1973) and later during the justicialista rule of Juan Peré³n (populist authoritarianism).
Chile under Augusto Pinochet until a transition to democracy in 1990
arent we in for a lot of fun…
too bad talking dont fix nuttin…
See also
Guided democracy – Governments are legitimated by elections that are free and fair but emptied of substantive meaning in their ability to change the State’s policies, motives, and goals. In other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the State’s continuous use of propaganda techniques
The concept of a “guided democracy” was developed in the 20th century by Walter Lippmann in his seminal work “Public Opinion” (1922) and by Edward Louis Bernays in his work “Crystallizing Public Opinion”.
After the second world war the term was used for Indonesia under the Sukarno-regime from 1945 to 1967. It is today widely employed in Russia, where it was introduced into common practice by the Kremlin theorists, in particular Gleb Pavlovsky and also the United States of America according to Princeton professor Sheldon Wolin and his theories regarding inverted totalitarianism.
Managed democracy
Enlightened despotism – The concept–formally delineated by German historian Wilhelm Roscher in 1847[1] –remains controversial among scholars.[2] Roscher was presaged by Voltaire, the prominent Enlightenment philosopher who felt enlightened monarchy was the only real way for society to advance, and by Mozart’s The Magic Flute, whose libretto was written by Emanuel Schikaneder, which can be regarded as an allegory advocating enlightened absolutism.
Inverted totalitarianism – Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin to describe the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin believes that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and he uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” to illustrate the similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union
Totalitarian democracy
Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin to describe the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin believes that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and he uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” to illustrate the similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union
Wolin writes:
Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash
you guys really really really should read the political theory books and such that taught these people to be what they are…
your never going to work out what it is on your own
as what it is, is derivative, evolved, and internal to itself… external logic will not alight on the same answers and so, you will never “get it”. which is the point… you also dont oppose what you dont get and cant name clearly and hides in abiguity.
too bad, as this stuff was all the rage i the 60s and 70s and would tell you whats coming.
funny, but there was stuff written in the 80s extending all this… all ya had to do was read it.
but why read? this is all a game, and its more fun to play and hit the reset button. except this time, there isnt a reset button…
Empirically Observed Examples
Concepts of pre emptive arrest, and more broadly speaking, inverted totalitarianism through managed democracy, may be perceived through a wider approach, and pre date the modern wars. Many issues that America is facing today with the revision of laws, x patriot act, taxation of Americans abroad, penalization of those who renounce their citizenship, and redirecting private property to the government, may be news to American citizens, but not to older countries.
yeah… that experience thing..
aint she a biatch in heat?
The U.S. is now learning of the less invasive forms and paradigms for deploying totalitarian control, primarily through law, or the “rule of law, and not the law of the jungle” as the propaganda goes. Democracy does not have to be managed via corporate interests at all. Conversely if the U.S. wanted to allocate power to corporate interests it would not be urging them out of the country with the highest corporate taxes anywhere
Democracy, so proudly hailed by the Greeks, who comprise a modern day example of what long term subtle fascism will do to a people, is in fact a political system that lends most strongly to absolute totalitarianism
This is so because in other systems, such as monarchy or dictatorship, there is one ruler, an authority who is questioned by many. Even in Communism, a system wherein the capital of a country is owned by the government, it is easy to trace decision making since one only has to look at the public sector and the government’s use of the capital. All this is impossible in a capitalist democratic republic. At least in other non democratic systems, the many still have the opportunity to congregate and eventually overthrow the single ruler(s). But, in a model such as “democracy” although the single dominant ruling force remains, with no regard to the will of the people, the people are disabled from retaliating for at least two reasons:
A) they are blamed for voting for that rule and
B) the nodes, or scalability of a democracy are too many to perceive and therefore blame is dissolved.
These two elements inexorably tend to redirect the blame for all of the ruler’s actions back against the “voting” public, though they never voted for that,while the human mind, once found helpless, can only accept and become complacent, and seek to investigate nothing any further, eventually turning against those few, who commit thought crime, offending their choice of subservience. Whereas the democratic model must contain at least two voting options, this structure further exacerbates the inversion of authority since the voting public of the opposition will always serve as a scapegoat for any blame appropriately apportioned. In other words voters spend more time blaming the opposing voters thus being distracted from the real constituents. Meanwhile, multiple voting options, although meritorious on the surface, implying freedom and expression of choice, lend only to divide the people so as so distract attention from pertinent issues and re allocate it to fabricated issues sounding notions of social systems, (socialism, capitalism, anarchism, constitutional monarchy, left wing, right wing, liberal, conservative, etc.) when in fact the only most viable system would be a mix of all the above.
not one of you in almost 10 years has managed to put it together in one large paragraph like that, and you coudl copy and read.
Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s attempting to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and collectivist central planning.
{and they invented FASCISM the third way, so welcome to the 4th reich}
Democracy was one of the better ways for the 1% nobility to convince the 99% that they deserve to be enslaved and ruled over.
A Republic makes that more difficult, though not impossible.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
It has been slipping away on a slippery slope, starting with Wilson, for almost 100 years. It will begin the slow process of being reborn within the next 3 years or it will be gone for good and everyone, from the top to the bottom, will suffer.
Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.