Beck says he can "make a case" Rathke brothers are "enslaving people through ACORN"
September 10, 2009 7:30 pm ET
From the September 10 edition of Fox News' The Glenn Beck Show:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Let me ask you one thing HOW CAN WE ADD 40 MILLION PEOPLE TO A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LOWER COSTS AND IMPROVE SERVICE WITHOUT RAISING THE PRICE ?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?
Stop and think about it if I add my daughter to my car insurance it goes up!?!?!?!?
Now, the 40 million people you are talking about are those who are currently either uninsured or under-insured. What we are adding them to is the health coverage system, also known as the insurance industry. What they have always had access to is the health care system. This means that they get treated in emergency rooms, and when they can't afford to pay because they have no insurance, the usual practice has been to declare bankruptcy.
The bill is not paid, but resources have been expended by the hospital, in the form of labor and supplies, both of which must be paid for. They add that bill to operating losses, which raises the price for everybody who is either fortunate enough to have insurance that pays, or wealthy enough not to need insurance.
The idea is that by everybody (legal citizen or legal resident) having insurance, these bills will paid rather than becoming losses for the hospitals, clinics, and emergency rooms. So, we're actually talking about lowering overall costs.
About the public option as a factor in this. The theory behind the public option is that the low cost (due to lower overhead), will inspire the for profit insurance companies to reduce operating costs by becoming more efficient, and perhaps reining in executive salaries. Again, this will have the effect of bringing costs down for everyone.
The argument has been made that the government could just give insurance away for free, in effect printing money, and run the private insurers out of business. Social Security was created in 1935. Has it driven retirement investment out of business? No. Medicare came in 1965. Do seniors still buy private health insurance? Of course.
Now ask yourself this: If there was a true Conservative movement in this country, that believed in the private sector, that believed in the small businesses as the key to job creation, that believed more government was not the answer to this question, then why would they not suggest the following?
Begin a private nonprofit health insurance company. Gather the money together, hire the best people you can, and operate within the nonprofit laws for business. You could show up the Democrats, who believe a public option is required to fix health coverage. You could support small business, probably by gathering them in large groups, supplying them with top quality coverage at an affordable price. Your premiums should be about half of what for-profit competitors offer. Think you would have customers? And you would be providing a necessary service to the American people by affecting the market in their favor. Plus, you'd be making what 90% of Americans would consider a living wage.
Just my two cents.
There are better alternatives how about using the same system that our government uses and pay in their health care system. It is already in place and works for the senate, congress and all other employees.
Employers will quite giving health care if all they have to do is pay a 8 percent fine every year. They would gladly pay 8 percent fine instead of roughly 18 percent health care costs they pay now. This in turn would mean those people would end up on the government plan.
Your idea of lower overhead is crazy the plan adds over 90 new departments and over 100,000 new employees to the already bloated government payroll.
If this is so important why does it not start until 2013??? Again the sky is falling we must do something even if it is wrong. Pass the second stimulus bill and unemployment will not go above 8 percent. Where is it now 10 percent?!
Get you head out of the sand and use a little common sense, when the money runs out and waste fraud and abuse overwhelms the system the government will have to make choices that none of us will see or hear about which means they will just cut off people. Better yet like social security they will string you along until you die.
If you retire at 55 you get $500.00 , you wait until 63 you get $550.00, 65 you get $750.00, 69 you get $1000.0, 73 you get 1800.00. They will string you along hoping you will die first and they will not have to pay out the money!!
Glenn, you're sponsored by the Goldline.com investors.
I think the only color you see is gold.
MagCynic- Perhaps you could find some evidence to support he's not the raging racist he's being painted as.
NewBee and Platanoman3029- Maybe you could provide evidence of said raging racism. If the evidence is as overwhelming as you claim, it should not be difficult.
Mind you I'm not trying to take either side on this debate between the three of you. Rather, I'd like to see who puts up the best argument for their position. :D
See, here's the problem. Every time I ask for a quote that proves Beck is a racist, I get a response similar to this. When I say something about - say - Keith Olbermann though, you all demand certified quotes, the time of day it was said, the tone of his voice, etc. Am I'm supposed to take everybody's word for it that Beck is a racist?
The likelihood of you admitting that Beck's a racist with the evidence put right in front of your face, is pretty small. I can count on one hand how many times I've seen a con admit they are wrong when presented with irrefutable evidence. It's just not in their DNA. If they had the ability to process information rationally, they wouldn't be cons in the first place.We're not here to convince you of anything. I frankly don't care what a bunch of knuckle-draggers are or aren't willing to admit. It's irrelevant.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909040025
This should provide a good starting point. Mr. Beck is at the very least quite conscious of race, and has made disparaging remarks based on the race of, to name one example, Justice Sotomayor.
Let me ask you this: If I ask Glenn Beck if he thinks white people are inherently better than black people, would he say yes?
I provided a post. This is what you were searching for several posts above, right?
Now, as far as racism goes, let's begin with a definition. I go to Merriam-Webster online, most of the time.
racism: 1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2) racial prejudice or discrimination.
discriminating: marking a distinction (difference).
Can we agree on terms, MagCynic?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909040025 In this post from the Glenn Beck show, Mr. Beck states that the reason people voted for President Obama was because he is black. He specifically discounts President Obama's campaign and policies to do so. This means he is making a distinction based on race, by saying Obama had he been white would not have been elected. That is racist, per definition 2) above.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260041 In this post from the Glenn Beck show, Mr. Beck refers to Justice Sotomayor by saying, "Hey, Hispanic chick lady..." Now, he himself is putting these words in the mouths of another, but he is predicating at least part of her eventual acceptance to the Supreme Court on her latin heritage. This is distinction based on race, once again.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907220015 In this post from the Glenn Beck show, Mr. Beck attributes President Obama's health reform proposal to reparations. It is virtually impossible to separate reparations from slavery, and particularly black slavery. This is, once more, Mr. Beck's belief that our President is guided only, or mostly, by the color of his skin. That's racism.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907240012 In this post from the Glenn Beck show, Mr. Beck says that the reason the President is in favor of cap & trade, health coverage reform, etc., is because he is seeking to redress old racial injustice. In other words, the President doesn't care about health reform or the environment, but is driven solely by his skin color. This is a racist opinion of Mr. Beck's.
I believe the examples given show a tendency on Mr. Beck's part to attribute the actions of those he disagrees with mostly if not entirely to race. I submit that this makes him a racist. I posted the links so you could simply cut and paste, and see for yourself.
I look forward to your reply, MagCynic.
Link 1: He's not putting black people down for being black. To say he got elected because he was black isn't racism; it's giving his opinion on why people would vote for him, ie the historical nature of the election. Affirmative action, by its nature, distinguishes between the races. If Beck is racist in this case, then anybody who is for affirmative action is a de facto racist.
Link 2: From your summary of the link it sounds like Beck is essentially calling the Justice an affirmative action pick. If so, see my take on the inherent racist nature of affirmative action above. If not then he's just addressing her by her heritage. If that makes him racist then anybody who says something like, "Are you looking for Raymond? Oh. He's that black guy over there." would be a racist. Technically they are still making a distinction based on race.
Link 3: I agree with you. It's very difficult to separate reparations from slavery. Again, I'm not going into each separate link so I'm just going by what you're saying. It sounds though that you are putting words into Beck's mouth. From my experience hearing Beck's opinions I've never come away with the impression that he believes Obama's sole motivating factor is his skin color.
Link 4: See my response to Link 3.
Link 1: "You were voting for... not change, but change I think in race, you were like 'Hey, let's put this behind us.' I think a lot of people were there. They weren't necessarily for his polices, because his policies are... what are they? Vote for change?" (link should be: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906080010)
Link 2: "He's like 'Hey! Hispanic chick lady! You're empathetic?' She says, 'Yep!' They say, 'You're in!' That's the way it really works."
Link 3: "None of his bills, none of his proposals are about what he says they're about. The health care bill is reparations. It's the beginning of reparations."
Link 4: Link is not currently working. I can't get the video to load.
Your point in #1, " To say he got elected because he was black isn't racism; it's giving his opinion on why people would vote for him, ie the historical nature of the election. " is a good point. I have mixed feelings about affirmative action as well. However, Beck seems to think it is a sole determining cause in many if not most cases. He argues that the campaign, the policies, these things don't matter, only the color of Obama's skin did.
Your point in #2," If that makes him racist then anybody who says something like, "Are you looking for Raymond? Oh. He's that black guy over there." would be a racist. " ignores intent, which can be inferred from tone of voice. I do not believe he was merely using her race as one among several distinguishing factors. You will have to hear how he says it and judge for yourself. Further, pointing Raymond out by skin color is mildly offensive, if not racist. Surely there are other distinguishing characteristics about him? I realize that it happens every day, in a mostly harmless and hurtless way, but Mr. Beck cannot be excused on these grounds. The rest of us really can't either, but that's another story for another time.
Your point in #3, " From my experience hearing Beck's opinions I've never come away with the impression that he believes Obama's sole motivating factor is his skin color. " is disputed by Beck himself. He claims it is the President Obama's policies are the beginning of reparations.
If you feel context is an issue, feel free to visit the links just to play the clip. I did my level best to transcribe his words exactly, though I am not the world's best typist.
I believe in research. I believe in being able to quote a source directly and cite it. Thank you for noticing. I applaud your reasonable tone. I enjoy debate, but yelling is not my cup of tea. MMfA does deal with misinformation in the media, and Beck seems responsible for more than his share, so that could easily both seem, and over time become a bias against him. Keep coming by and keeping us honest! :)
I look forward to more questions, MagCynic. Keep 'em coming!
Beck - Drama Queen? Sure. Racist? Nah, I don't think so.