The vast undereducated population of America confuse 'Socialism' with Communism- and the image of Russian tanks rolling through the streets, thanks to a 50 year long Cold War.

Methinks that the forces marshaled against the current health care debate have ulterior motives. ($$$$$$)

Medicare isn't all that bedrock. Paul Ryan wants to repeal it as part of his roadmap to a better GOP future.

That Social Security program you keep yammering on about, haven't you heard, the GOP wants to turn it over to our wonderful bankers. No need for it to continue being an untested and unproven socialist program.

"If it's any consolation to wavering Dems, progressive policymakers are always vindicated by history."

Uh, I would think the progressive enthusiasm for Prohibition and progressive reformers' curiosity about eugenics have yet to be so vindicated.

Mike

Well there you go again MBUNGE.
Woodrow Wilson (who certainly could be considered a progressive ) vetoed the Volstead act and FDR signed the law that amended it to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages.
So what the fuck are you alluding to about progressive enthusiasm? As to the eugenics thing that's total bullshit that doesn't even merit a respose.

You wouldn't happen to have a citation for that "dog tag" quote, would you? I would like to be able to document that as a fact in future discussions, especially with the Tea Party.

@ Gandalf - Woodrow Wilson also segregated DC.

Re the article: Benen ignores the obvious and in the process seriously undercuts his own argument. Medicare did not pass until 1965, by which time Democrats had assembled broad support for the program: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/07/health_care_reform_circa_1965.html

If you're part of the "pass the damn bill" crowd - you probably should look for examples of legislation that actually supports your argument.

m1 maybe you should take a class in reading comprehension. I fail to see how the fact that medicare passed in 1965 3 years after it was first proposed undercuts Benen's argument that major legislation is usually contentious. It probably supports it even more so.

It's really not that hard to understand. The program didn't actually pass until three years after the poll he cites, at which point Dems were able to build a broad-based public consensus for Medicare. Benen argues the healthcare reform bill should be passed now, when support for it is still underwater (if improving), so how exactly does the example of Medicare advance his broader argument?

If Congress had slogged ahead and passed Medicare in 1962, the argument would hold water. As it stands now, it does not.

With rare exceptions since Taft took over the Republican Party and prevented TR from running again in 1912, and LaFollette split to run on his own ticket in the late 1920's, the Republicans have been very conservative (except perhaps for Nixon who imposed wage and price controls). And have moved to the point where they are very close to being the kind of corporate tools that they were in 1896, 1912 etc

Against environmental health, against worker rights, for monolopy, for legislation of morality, against public schools, for the gold standard, warning everyone about socialism, for an imperial America.

Once upon a time, Republicans seemed to stand for making things better through efficiency and science. Now, they hate science and prefer destruction to efficiency.

So it's bye bye Mr Republican guy
Over your wasted opportunities I won't cry
America is starting see every time you lie
And saying now its time to say good bye
it's time to say good-bye.

Categorically, this is a bad argument.

Just because some now popular bills were passed in previous years by Democrats HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the merits of this current bill.

Either an idea is a good one or a bad one. But you cannot argue the following
A: 75 or so years ago a good bill was passed by Democrats ...
B: *crickets*
C: ...so therefore this bill today must be a good bill.

There's no causality.

Pass this POS bill or don't pass this POS bill but please don't ask people to support nonsense arguments.

"Woodrow Wilson (who certainly could be considered a progressive ) vetoed the Volstead act and FDR signed the law that amended it to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages."

That progressives eventually realized, along with everybody else, that Prohibition was a disaster does not magically poof away the fact that progressives were huge supporters of the idea initialy.

And the interest of more than a few progressives, though not progressivism as a whole, in eugenics is pretty well established. Ignoring or denying it only empowers loons like Glenn Beck to rant and rave on the subject.

Mike

Observer,

That's a misstatement of the argument.

The argument is:

A. Passing some bills has been controversial in the past.
B. This bill is controversial.
C. It's okay to pass it.

@ Ed Whitney, re: dog tags.

See Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Politics of Upheaval (The Age of Roosevelt, v. 3), Boston, 1960, pp. 636, 640. The source of this claim was John Hamilton, the Republican National Chairman in 1936, and he repeated it many times, brandishing a pair in his fist. The charge actually caused the Roosevelt reelection campaign some nervousness as factory workers were seen tearing up Democratic campaign literature. Alf Landon, the (formerly progressive Republican) nominee, also charged that the new Social Security system was going to fingerprint registrants. In a Boston speech he declared: "Imagine the field opened for federal snooping. Are these 26 million Americans going to be fingerprinted? Are their photographs going to be kept on file in a Washington office? Are they going to have identification tags put around their necks?" The Hearst newspapers all carried "on page 1 an arresting spread: 'Do You Want A Tag And A Number In The Name Of False Security?' On page 2 was a picture of a bare-chested man somberly wearing a tag on a long chain: below was the stark caption: YOU."

Hearst and the Chicago Tribune were the Fox News of the 1930s.

Plus ca change, plus le meme chose...

Dear Republicans: since you're so convinced that HCR is tantamount to a Leninist-Nazi takeover, or whatever, why not just give Nancy Pelosi the rope she needs to supposedly hang herself? Just step back and let the Dems do this thing. The moment this boondoggle passes, there will be apocalyptic misery in the streets, people crawling in gutters, rolling in their own filth, hacking up their lungs in rage and as a result of ten-year long waiting lines just to see a receptionist at a government-run clinic for a minor cold, their children being forced to learn Swedish, etc. etc. The electorate will sure kick our ass in November and give you huge governing majorities in both houses of Congress! Then you just repeal it and walk away smelling like roses! GOP majorities 4-evah!!1!

Unless you detect a small flaw in that plan that's making you think twice...

Thanks JM917 for the citation. It brings back old memories to go the the library physically and get the hard copy off the stacks. For those who do not have a good library nearby, there is an account of this incident at http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp104594.pdf with the Alf Landon quote.

"That progressives eventually realized, along with everybody else, that Prohibition was a disaster does not magically poof away the fact that progressives were huge supporters of the idea initialy."

That's a bit like pointing out that Democrats used to support segregation. People who call themselves "progressives" today don't want to write Christian morality into law. If the Anti-Saloon League were around today, it would be classified as part of the religious right.

Actually, We can afford SSI. One main thing that nobody really talks about is the huge pensions that government employees get. A friend of mine, gets $5200.00/mo. with colas. This was at age 53!. The most he ever made at his job was 62,500. Imagine what the pension is for the bigger incomes. HUGE! If Uncle Sam is so hellbent on saving money, either cut their pension amount or raise their retirement age to age 62.