Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

So it doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse, we will be screwed by the rich. Over :coupling: Over :coupling: and over :coupling:

I'm not being screwed by any super rich. Are you?

[randolph]

I'm not being screwed by any super rich. Are you?

No, I am not either, because the rich are obsessed with money rather than sex. Their view of screwing somebody is getting as much of their money as possible. I suspect they have organisms at night playing with their money. $$$:inlove:

[smc]

No, I am not either, because the rich are obsessed with money rather than sex. Their view of screwing somebody is getting as much of their money as possible. I suspect they have organisms at night playing with their money. $$$:inlove:

I'm not rich, and I'm not poor, but I've never heard of nor aspired to having an organism (unless, of course, you count my own). Wow! The things money can buy continue to astound me. Do you get that from Nordstrom or Neiman-Marcus? :)

[randolph]

I'm not rich, and I'm not poor, but I've never heard of nor aspired to having an organism (unless, of course, you count my own). Wow! The things money can buy continue to astound me. Do you get that from Nordstrom or Neiman-Marcus? :)

Didn't you know, organisms are a special kind of orgasm for people who have a spelling disability. :blush: :rolleyes:

[TracyCoxx]

No, I am not either, because the rich are obsessed with money rather than sex. Their view of screwing somebody is getting as much of their money as possible. I suspect they have organisms at night playing with their money. $$$:inlove:

LOL Let them play with their organisms. It's a free country. :lol:

So are the super rich taking your money randolf?

[randolph]

LOL Let them play with their organisms. It's a free country. :lol:

So are the super rich taking your money randolf?

Not anymore, I have it all stashed in Nigeria. :lol:

[franalexes]

Not anymore, I have it all stashed in Nigeria. :lol:

And I can free up those funds for you if you just forward your account numbers and a small transaction fee.

[The Conquistador]

Not anymore, I have it all stashed in Nigeria. :lol:

Nigeria probably isn't the best place to go with all your money. The MEND organization isn't exactly the friendliest of groups. Just givin you a heads up. ;)

[randolph]

Nigeria probably isn't the best place to go with all your money. The MEND organization isn't exactly the friendliest of groups. Just givin you a heads up. ;)

I followed Fran's instructions and now my money is safely stored in a secret cave deep in the jungle and protected by Pygmies.:lol:

[TracyCoxx]

November 3rd after the democrats lost control of the House
we were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn?t change how things got done. And I think that frustrated people.
...

I am a strong believer that the earmarking process in Congress isn?t what the American people really want to see when it comes to making tough decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent. And I, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, which was contrary to what I had talked about. And I think folks look at that and they said, ?Gosh, this feels like the same partisan squabbling, this seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before.? And so one of the things that I?ve got to take responsibility for is not having moved enough on those fronts.

So does that mean we can expect a veto of the FY2011 Omnibus Spending Bill because of the 6714 earmarks worth $8 billion that it contains?

[randolph]

November 3rd after the democrats lost control of the House


So does that mean we can expect a veto of the FY2011 Omnibus Spending Bill because of the 6714 earmarks worth $8 billion that it contains?

Not likely, what politicians say and what they do have little connection. In spite of the critical deficit they are not willing to bite the bullet, take fiscal responsibility and severely cut spending. The millions for new engines for the strike fighter is a case in point. The military doesn't want them but Congress wants to spend the money that we don't have anyway. :censored:

[franalexes]

November 3rd after the democrats lost control of the House


So does that mean we can expect a veto of the FY2011 Omnibus Spending Bill because of the 6714 earmarks worth $8 billion that it contains?

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Get fucking real! You know better.:frown:

[randolph]

Washington is a disaster and its not just the liberals responsible, the whole system, Supreme Court, Congress, White House, political parties, is fucked up. There seems to be nothing that we can do about it, or is there?

What if everyone in the country only paid 50% of their tax bill? :eek:

[The Conquistador]

Washington is a disaster and its not just the liberals responsible, the whole system, Supreme Court, Congress, White House, political parties, is fucked up. There seems to be nothing that we can do about it, or is there?[/B]

There is, but most people are too lazy and self serving to do anything to correct it. Seeing as how it would be too much of a hinderance on their ability to watch American Idol and bloat themselves with twinkies, most would rather be happy being entertained and being ignorant of the world around them than stand up and take a second to realize how fast the boat is sinking. This is The Fall Of Rome Pt. 2: The American Fasttrack.

[QUOTE=randolph]What if everyone in the country only paid 50% of their tax bill? :eek:

What if everyone just decided to keep their money and never paid their taxes?

[The Conquistador]

In other news, 9 TRILLION missing from the Federal Reserve!!! :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYNVNhB-m0o

[randolph]

In other news, 9 TRILLION missing from the Federal Reserve!!! :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYNVNhB-m0o

This boggles the mind! A must see by every American. :eek:

[ila]

.......What if everyone in the country only paid 50% of their tax bill? :eek:

Take a look at Greece's problems and you'll see what happens when taxes aren't paid.

[randolph]

Take a look at Greece's problems and you'll see what happens when taxes aren't paid.
Bankruptcy! :censored:

On the other hand what if the government keeps spending more money and cutting taxes?
Bankruptcy! :censored:

Argentina is going to solve their debt problem by expropriating retirement accounts. Are we next?
Rioting in the streets. :censored:

Uggg, I need to go back to thinking about lovely erect shecocks. :drool:

[The Conquistador]

This boggles the mind! A must see by every American. :eek:

Politician*

Rope*

Lamppost*

*Some assembly required...


And people think that the Gov. has their best interests in mind. Obviously not if they are so loose with other peoples money. :censored:

[randolph]

Guess who is winning. :censored:

[TracyCoxx]

There's no comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5MweSZjbc

[transjen]

Very true for one he's not a two bit brain dead movie actor
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Dear old Ronnie started the trickle down economy. Remember the Laffer curve? It was bullshit then and its bullshit now. Ronnie had to eventually raise taxes because his policies failed. Nevertheless since then, Repubs. have loved the trickle down economy. :coupling:

So now Obama has embraced Reaganomics. :censored:

Can anybody still believe Obama is a socialist? :no:

Taxes will have to be raised, it's just a matter of time. The way things are going, a Republican congress will have to do it. :lol:

[TracyCoxx]

Taxes will have to be raised, it's just a matter of time. The way things are going, a Republican congress will have to do it. :lol:

And back we go to post 225 (http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=167478&postcount=225).

[transjen]

Want to cut stuff then first and foremost lets cut corprate welfare the billions of tax dollars being pumped in to multibillion dollar corprations like the oil companies and second tax the rich forget all this GOP bull crap that tax cuts for the rich trickles down well W did mega tax cuts for the rich and at the end of eight years avg joes family income was down and he lost more jobs then he created so lets here it for trickle down and buy the way Tracy before you start giveing unemployment percentages don't forgot to count the two wars and all the reservest cared up and had to walk away from there jobs creating an temp opening which hide a large portation of unemployement and if tax cuts for the rich create jobs then what happend where are the jobs?
Tax cuts for the rich doesn't create jobs this is the same old GOP BS that has been going around since the GOP saint Ronny came up with the BS in the 80s and aftwer 12 years of the BS all we were left with was a sea of red ink and massive unemployment
Trickle down was a failure in the 80s and it's still a failure it only benfits the rich
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Once Obama care is fully implemented my health insurance payments go up to around $1000 or more a year. Plus it adds another $trillion to our debt. This is less expensive how?I don?t know what is made with Obama care, but how can it be more expensive to your insurance payments? What are they doing wrong with the Obama care that it doesn?t get closer to other countries in price?

Looks like ObamaCare is starting to have an effect already. I am employed and I have health insurance. Our insurance rates are going up this year more than usual. What's worse is I'm losing my doctor I've had for years because he's now completely off insurance. He's on this thing called MDVIP which means if I want to keep him as a doctor I have to pay him $1600/year and I get to see him as often as I want. This isn't just my doctor, I know a few other people who also have to find other doctors and while searching online for doctors I'm seeing that people are saying don't bother with this doctor - he's good but he's not on insurance anymore. I don't have $1600/yr to spend on a doctor so I have to find a doctor who's probably not as good. So like they've been saying about ObamaCare: decreased quality of service, and or higher medical bills. Obama, I thought you said if I liked my old health care I could keep it. I can't do that you SOB. It doesn't exist anymore.

[Tread]

Looks like ObamaCare is starting to have an effect already. I am employed and I have health insurance. Our insurance rates are going up this year more than usual. What's worse is I'm losing my doctor I've had for years because he's now completely off insurance. He's on this thing called MDVIP which means if I want to keep him as a doctor I have to pay him $1600/year and I get to see him as often as I want. This isn't just my doctor, I know a few other people who also have to find other doctors and while searching online for doctors I'm seeing that people are saying don't bother with this doctor - he's good but he's not on insurance anymore. I don't have $1600/yr to spend on a doctor so I have to find a doctor who's probably not as good. So like they've been saying about ObamaCare: decreased quality of service, and or higher medical bills. Obama, I thought you said if I liked my old health care I could keep it. I can't do that you SOB. It doesn't exist anymore.

:confused:I don?t know what you want to say. Is this an answer? Am I supposed to say something?
What has this to do with decreased quality of service? Is your old doctor the only good doctor in your range?
Is there a connection between ObamaCare or Obama and MDVIP I should know off?
This sounds like it was the doctor?s decision, and the doctor could have done this years earlier, if he/she wanted.
And why are you affronting Obama for that?:confused:

[TracyCoxx]

:confused:I don’t know what you want to say. Is this an answer? Am I supposed to say something?
What has this to do with decreased quality of service? Is your old doctor the only good doctor in your range?
Is there a connection between ObamaCare or Obama and MDVIP I should know off?
This sounds like it was the doctor’s decision, and the doctor could have done this years earlier, if he/she wanted.
And why are you affronting Obama for that?:confused:

Like I said it's not just my doctor. It looks like it's several doctors. I'm trying to get a feel for how widespread this is. But it looks like this is how things are going now.

[TracyCoxx]

Can someone please explain Pelosi? Yesterday on her way out she said:

"Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us, it's our mantra: Pay as you go."

I know politicians stretch the truth, but with the deficit increasing $5.2 trillion under her watch how can she stand there and say that with a straight face? This fits every definition of a bold faced lie. Is there any way she can possibly believe what she's saying is true?

[Tread]

Like I said it's not just my doctor. It looks like it's several doctors. I'm trying to get a feel for how widespread this is. But it looks like this is how things are going now.

Oh, come on. According to their website http://www.mdvip.com/ they were founded in 2000, and they list almost 400 doctors in the whole US (I counted).
What do you want to say?

BTW: What does the abbreviation MDVIP stands for? I can?t find it.

[smc]

Oh, come on. According to their website http://www.mdvip.com/ they were founded in 2000, and they list almost 400 doctors in the whole US (I counted).
What do you want to say?

BTW: What does the abbreviation MDVIP stands for? I can?t find it.

Any doctor who decides to join MDVIP is doing so for his or her own reasons, not because he or she is driven there by the Obama healthcare reform.

MDVIP (it means "Medical Doctors for Very Important Persons") is a money-making venture begun by some doctors who want to make more money by offering boutique, personalized services to those who can afford it. It is the antithesis of the kind of healthcare we should have in this country. Notably, Procter & Gamble -- the giant consumer products company -- bought this company fully in early 2010, expanding its minority stake to full ownership.

I spoke with two Harvard Medical School professors I know before writing this response. Here's a synopsis of how they both described MDVIP.

- This is another step in the misdirection of "managed care," designed to make more money doing less.

- The criteria for being a doctor in the MDVIP network is that you have to cut your practice to about 600 patients maximum (the current primary-care doctor in an urban area has 2,000 to 3,000 patients). The criteria for being a patient of such a doctor is your personal level of wealth and disposable income to pay for "care" beyond your insurance. The doctor will still collect from your insurance company; he or she just wants you to pay extra for the "privilege" of seeing him or her quickly.

- The focus is on "preventive" care, which should be the focus of the healthcare system as a whole.

- One of my colleagues said, "Welcome to the medical world's version of a country club."

Tracy Coxx, you really ought to take a deep breath before jumping to the conclusion that everything you dislike in the world can be traced to Obama, Pelosi, Democrats, and so on. The business model for a company like MDVIP precedes the healthcare debate and legislation of the last year by a long time; doctors have been trying to figure out ways to create these boutiques as sustainable ventures for many years.

[Tread]

Thanks for the info, smc.
That confirms what I have googled and concluded about MDVIP.

Post #276 sounds like it was a response to me, and should prove something. I expected an explanation or at minimum some conspiracy theory from Tracy, and not an absurd pointless attack against Obama.

[TracyCoxx]

Welll we'll see how it pans out. And no, I did not say that MDVIP is the only refuge for doctors who are fed up with what Obama is doing to the health care system.

[transjen]

Welll we'll see how it pans out. And no, I did not say that MDVIP is the only refuge for doctors who are fed up with what Obama is doing to the health care system.

Well tell these greedy doctors to jam it as those doctors can careless about there patients and all the care about is money so everyone is better off with out them and let them go work at Wal-mart for min wage
This for profit medical system is what's wrong with it the pure greed of the doctors and healthcare ins companies
If you think that stopin malpractice lawsuits and letting the healthcare ins companies run wild with no rules the coast will come down then i have a bridge to see you in San Fran bay
But then these ideas are from the same nut jobs who claim cutting taxes on the rich will create jobs
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[Trogdor]

Well tell these greedy doctors to jam it as those doctors can careless about there patients and all the care about is money so everyone is better off with out them and let them go work at Wal-mart for min wage
This for profit medical system is what's wrong with it the pure greed of the doctors and healthcare ins companies
If you think that stopin malpractice lawsuits and letting the healthcare ins companies run wild with no rules the coast will come down then i have a bridge to see you in San Fran bay
But then these ideas are from the same nut jobs who claim cutting taxes on the rich will create jobs
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Yep, it's pretty much Reaganomics all over again....and we all know how well that went. :p

[smc]

Welll we'll see how it pans out. And no, I did not say that MDVIP is the only refuge for doctors who are fed up with what Obama is doing to the health care system.

That's right: you did not use those words. But what I wrote is still how you come across, and you can't hide it.

[TracyCoxx]

It's horrendous what happened in Arizona yesterday. I'm so glad Rep. Giffords survived. I just hope she is able to recover back to a normal life. And it's so sad about the others who were killed. What kind of monster shoots a 9 year old girl? :censored: The sooner they strap him to the electric chair the better.

[desirouspussy]

I find it amazing that foriegners act as the experts on American government.

It isn't really all that amazing, Fran. People in Europe are generally very well informed on American government. That is because American policy affects the people on this side of the ocean almost as much as you.
Take for instance the current financial crises that was triggered in the US but now affects us all. Many European countries have troops stationed in Afganistan simply because they cannot afford to be on bad terms with the US. That is unfortunately what politics is all about.

But while we're rather well informed on American politics, it is often hard for us to understand the American way. We can for instance not understand that in a country as rich as the US, where some are earning billions of dollars while trillions are wasted on useless wars, millions of people cannot afford to take out health insurance. It is even harder to understand for us that a President who is trying to rectify this horrible situation is heavily criticized by those doing well. I guess we just don't get that over here.

[TracyCoxx]

It is even harder to understand for us that a President who is trying to rectify this horrible situation is heavily criticized by those doing well. I guess we just don't get that over here.

It's the way he's going about it. You don't have congress pass thousand page health care packages that affect people's health and 1/6 of the nations economy without reading it after making campaign promises of no more back room deals. Seriously, the congressmen voting on it did not know what was in it. That's insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

The other problem is that the Constitution does not grant the government power to force people to buy health insurance. A federal judge has already ruled on this, so that has to be resolved.

[randolph]

It's horrendous what happened in Arizona yesterday. I'm so glad Rep. Giffords survived. I just hope she is able to recover back to a normal life. And it's so sad about the others who were killed. What kind of monster shoots a 9 year old girl? :censored: The sooner they strap him to the electric chair the better.

Apparently he legally bought a Glock at a gun shop a few months ago. The evidence indicates that the young man is clearly deranged and should have never been allowed to have a gun.
I don't know if they do background checks in Arizona and they want to make it legal for students to bring guns to school. As the Sheriff said, Arizona is living up to the Tombstone reputation.

[TracyCoxx]

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) suggested in an interview that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ...

But no long-form birth certificate. And no typed original document like what BO has posted online. Looks like it's time to start asking questions again.

[smc]

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) suggested in an interview that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.



But no long-form birth certificate. And no typed original document like what BO has posted online. Looks like it's time to start asking questions again.

This is insanity. You do yourself such an injustice by posting such drivel, when there are real issues that matter.

[randolph]

Democrat
You have two cows
Your neighbor has none
You feel guilty for being successful
You vote people into office that put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax.
The people you vote for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your neighbor.
You feel righteous.
Barbara Steisand sings for you.

Republican
You have two cows
Your neighbor has none.
So?

Socialist
You have two cows
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

Communist
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk
You wait in line to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

American corporation
You have two cows
you sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

:lol:

[TracyCoxx]

Logical fallacy: Appeal to ridicule

This is insanity. You do yourself such an injustice by posting such drivel, when there are real issues that matter.

[smc]

Logical fallacy: Appeal to ridicule

I suggest you review what the logical fallacy called "appeal to ridicule" actually involves. I have created no straw man. You have, Tracy, by bringing up something that has nothing to do with the actual policies being implemented with which you disagree. In doing so, you seek to negate the man rather than address his policies (at least in this post and with this argument), thus contributing to the ridiculous hyperbole of others in which policies that are not that different from ones proposed by Republicans over the years (e.g., the healthcare plan is based in large part on Romney's Massachusetts plan and the plan Dole campaigned on for the presidency; etc.) are stated to be the end of our freedom, the death of America, and so on.

And before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, note carefully that I said you are "contributing to the ridiculous hyperbole of others."

As has been pointed out on this site again and again, no matter how much civil discourse we have about politics, and no matter how substantive the discussion gets on the issues, it seems we can always count on you to revert at some point, and in some way either large or small, back to arguments and views that are facile, questionable as to their verity, and (as in this particular case) irrelevant. That is precisely what this birther crap is. When you are arguing substantively, it is obvious that you are so much smarter than those who take such crap as good coin, and it's a shame you can't seem to help but go swimming in their muck from time to time.

And before you accuse me of insulting another member of this Forum, note carefully that I am writing of your occasional opinions, not of you. You will not get ad hominem arguments out of me.

[TracyCoxx]

Appeal to Ridicule does not always involve a strawman. I did not accuse you of insulting me. I accused you of ridiculing my statement, like you said, without addressing the statement.

[smc]

Appeal to Ridicule does not always involve a strawman. I did not accuse you of insulting me. I accused you of ridiculing my statement, like you said, without addressing the statement.

You should read more carefully. My point about "insulting" was relevant to my last post, not your post that first brought up the false "logical fallacy."

And I did address your statement. It is unworthy of serious discourse. That is my response.

Again, there are serious issues to discuss. This birther crap is not among that set.

[aw9725]

I have typically avoided political discussions on this forum mainly because, as I?ve said before, I don?t enjoy discussing complex issues unless I know who I?m talking to. Get me in a room with my students, friends, or colleagues however, and it is a completely different ballgame! One of the basic problems of online discussion is that it is next to impossible to fully argue a solution to a complex problem such as what to do about health care, global warming, or the economy in a short text response. We unfortunately tend to take a side and cling to it, failing to hear what others are saying, and then attacking or labeling their beliefs--often incorrectly.

What I have seen of political discourse on the Internet in general is discouraging. Unfortunately so is it here. The few ?political? threads I have seen on ?TLB? all seem to be dominated by the same person with the express goal of stating their own views and excluding or ridiculing all others. The same pattern occurs over and over again: whether it be universal health care, Obama?s nationality, net neutrality, or a supposed ?liberal free for all.? The stage is ?set in advance?--like a trap--with loaded arguments and titles like ?There Goes the Internet.? The issue is presented not for discussion--but rather as a challenge--to see who will dare to question the OP.

Many well thought out and reasonable arguments have indeed been presented in each thread, both for and against the OP. However almost all statements ?against? the OP have been dismissed with ridicule, denial that something was ever said, labeling, sarcastic remarks, and reliance on statements that make me think too much time is spent listening to Rush Limbaugh, watching Fox news, and not getting out of the house. Almost never is an idea attacked or supported on its own merits or with real evidence. Personally I want nothing to do with this sort of political ?discussion,? nor do I believe that it belongs in this forum.

[randolph]

Tracy, you sometimes appear to belong to the "don't confuse me with the facts crowd".
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia.

"In 2008 the Obama campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008) released his birth certificate, certified by the Hawaii Department of Health, and posted a scanned image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanned_image) of it online. The posted certificate states that Obama was born in Honolulu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honolulu), Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#cite_ note-politico2009-07-28-0) The certificate also states, "This copy serves as prima facie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie) evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding". Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" or "long form" birth certificate, but rather a redacted "short form" version. It has also been claimed that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#cite_ note-birtherday-12) every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials?a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#cite_ note-Alex-13) Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate".[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#cite_ note-HSB20090606-14) Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama?s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#cite_ note-Reyes-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#cite_ note-AP-16)"

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy, you sometimes appear to belong to the "don't confuse me with the facts crowd".
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia.I admit I hadn't done my Wikipedia research. That's interesting about the long form birth certificate. Although there's a woman in a paper I saw who had twins born at the same hospital as BO on the day after he was born, and she's showed their birth certificates. I don't know if it's officially called a long form, but it requires a lot more information than BO's certificate has (image attached).

What keeps me curious is the fact that his own grandmother ID'd him at the birth canal in Kenya, and that he later had Indonesian citizenship (not dual since that was not allowed in Indonesia). And now this thing with the governor of Hawaii, who seems to be trying to help BO isn't doing him any favors LOL. And the fact that he goes to great lengths to conceal his original birth certificate isn't doing himself any favors either. Unless it doesn't exist, in which case I guess he would be doing himself a favor by refusing to show it.

[randolph]

I admit I hadn't done my Wikipedia research. That's interesting about the long form birth certificate. Although there's a woman in a paper I saw who had twins born at the same hospital as BO on the day after he was born, and she's showed their birth certificates. I don't know if it's officially called a long form, but it requires a lot more information than BO's certificate has (image attached).

What keeps me curious is the fact that his own grandmother ID'd him at the birth canal in Kenya, and that he later had Indonesian citizenship (not dual since that was not allowed in Indonesia). And now this thing with the governor of Hawaii, who seems to be trying to help BO isn't doing him any favors LOL. And the fact that he goes to great lengths to conceal his original birth certificate isn't doing himself any favors either. Unless it doesn't exist, in which case I guess he would be doing himself a favor by refusing to show it.

It seems that once a political idea is implanted in the mind, anecdotal evidence becomes of equal value as actual verifiable facts.

[TracyCoxx]

It seems that once a political idea is implanted in the mind, anecdotal evidence becomes of equal value as actual verifiable facts.

How is it that birth certificates from other births at the same hospital as BO was born at and at the same time not directly show what type of birth certificates BO's hospital was producing at the time?

[randolph]

HONOLULU ? Anyone would be able to get a copy of President Barack Obama's birth records for a $100 fee under a bill introduced in the state Legislature that backers hope will finally dispel claims he was born elsewhere.
The bill would change a privacy law barring the release of birth records unless the requester is someone with a tangible interest, such as a close family member.
The measure was introduced by five Democrats but has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing, a required step before it can move forward. A decision on considering the bill will be made by the House's Democratic leadership and committee

Maybe this will shutup the birthers.

[smc]

Maybe this will shutup the birthers.

Not likely, since the birther kerfuffle is a cover for not being to have a rational argument about substantive issues. At best, it will have the same people move on to some other bullshit.

[franalexes]

If the birth location thing were true, and as important as it is, someone would have leaked the truth and people in high places would be on to it.

Ever person that is half white and half ( some other color) is always a person of ( some other color), Why?

[randolph]

If the birth location thing were true, and as important as it is, someone would have leaked the truth and people in high places would be on to it.

Ever person that is half white and half ( some other color) is always a person of ( some other color), Why?

Apparently because in this country white is right. Then there are the others.

[TracyCoxx]

If the birth location thing were true, and as important as it is, someone would have leaked the truth and people in high places would be on to it.

Ever person that is half white and half ( some other color) is always a person of ( some other color), Why?

Yeah, hospitals always record the darker color. Even if they're only 1/64th black. Not sure why.

[Rainrider]

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

[Rainrider]

Ever person that is half white and half ( some other color) is always a person of ( some other color), Why?

Best me. After all if we remove the skin, are we not all the same? If so what does it matter? Prejudiced is some thing this world can do with out. It was the reason for the killing of 6 million Jews in WW2, the Spanish Inquisition, the war to remove the native Americans from their land, and this list can get real long so I will stop with that. I am sure the point is clear.

[smc]

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

People should be very careful generalizing their personal experiences. There are far too many serious issues at stake to be saying ridiculous, unproven, and likely false things such as "Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good."

Facile solutions are pablum.

And how about some respect? "Obummer"? How can you be taken seriously when you belittle serious discourse.

[randolph]

There is talk of changing Federal law to allow states to go into bankruptcy and restructure their finances. In view of the dire situation here in California, this may be the way to go. After years of handing out plush salaries and generous retirements and borrowing money to cover operating costs, the state is frozen in a political stalemate. No one is willing to give up anything, the legislature is a farce. Jerry Brown sincerely wants to do something but his power is very limited by the initiative process that has locked expenses into the Constitution.
Bankruptcy would allow the state to break down all the special interests and start from scratch. Sounds good to me.

[TracyCoxx]

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

Welcome to the site and to this thread. It's nice to have some input from someone who's actually in the healthcare business and to get their thoughts on what Obummercare will do. Is that what people in healthcare are calling it? lol Hopefully it will be repealed somehow, someway before it becomes yet another monstrous cancer on our nation that we can't get rid of like Social Security which will run out of money in 2037. How much further into debt will we go to fix that?

[smc]

Welcome to the site and to this thread. It's nice to have some input from someone who's actually in the healthcare business and to get their thoughts on what Obummercare will do. Is that what people in healthcare are calling it? lol Hopefully it will be repealed somehow, someway before it becomes yet another monstrous cancer on our nation that we can't get rid of like Social Security which will run out of money in 2037. How much further into debt will we go to fix that?

Once again, no one is entitled to her or his own facts.

Social Security, according to the Congressional Budget Office, currently has enough to pay 100% of claims until 2037, and then only 80% of claims for decades after that. You should pay attention to the whole story, not just the part that is told TO YOU so you will think a certain way.

A simple change in the rate people pay into Social Security -- i.e., make those who make a $1 million a year pay more than those who make $175,000 a year, and only a bit more -- will keep the system solvent at 100% for a much, much longer time. But that fix doesn't fit into the narrative of those who want to turn Social Security over to Wall Street speculators.

[Trogdor]

What freaks me out is how the Egyptian government pretty much pulled the plug on the internet, to keep people from twittering and blackberrying and stuff.....imagine if that happens here.

[randolph]

What freaks me out is how the Egyptian government pretty much pulled the plug on the internet, to keep people from twittering and blackberrying and stuff.....imagine if that happens here.

When the government is threatened, they(the government) will do anything to protect themselves from the public or any other threat(9/11, Homeland security).

[ila]

...If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care...


I am a Canadian, as indicated by my location in every post that I make. You never talked to me so right off your statement is false because I am more than satisfied with the quality of healthcare that I receive here. I can choose my own doctor, there is no cost to me for any visits to my doctor, I don't have to worry about getting rejected by an insurance company, I don't have to fill out forms for any treatment, everything that is available in the US is available here, and most importantly if I should ever be hospitalized I will not have to sell my house and all my possessions just to pay medical bills.

There are some people that do go to the US because they complain about wait times for some procedures, but I've never had to wait long for any medical procedure. One must also realize that Canada is the second largest country in the world and yet the population of the whole country is less than California. It's not easy to provide all services to people all over such a large country, but it does happen.

So I suggest you don't make such generalizations unless you know your facts and then be more specific.

[smc]

I am a Canadian, as indicated by my location in every post that I make. You never talked to me so right off your statement is false because I am more than satisfied with the quality of healthcare that I receive here. I can choose my own doctor, there is no cost to me for any visits to my doctor, I don't have to worry about getting rejected by an insurance company, I don't have to fill out forms for any treatment, everything that is available in the US is available here, and most importantly if I should ever be hospitalized I will not have to sell my house and all my possessions just to pay medical bills.

There are some people that do go to the US because they complain about wait times for some procedures, but I've never had to wait long for any medical procedure. One must also realize that Canada is the second largest country in the world and yet the population of the whole country is less than California. It's not easy to provide all services to people all over such a large country, but it does happen.

So I suggest you don't make such generalizations unless you know your facts and then be more specific.

Thank you for contributing to helping keep facts, and not regurgitated, impressionistic "talking points," a part of the discussions on this site.

[Trogdor]

When the government is threatened, they(the government) will do anything to protect themselves from the public or any other threat(9/11, Homeland security).

Homeland security is a threat....plus 9-11 is now just an excuse to do ANYTHING that takes away people's rights in the name of security. And We are the government's boss, we are not there servants...as shocking as that sounds.

And when a government does that, it already shows the problem is with the government. I'm all for what the Egyptian people are doing.

[Rainrider]

People should be very careful generalizing their personal experiences. There are far too many serious issues at stake to be saying ridiculous, unproven, and likely false things such as "Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good."

Facile solutions are pablum.

And how about some respect? "Obummer"? How can you be taken seriously when you belittle serious discourse.

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily. Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake.
Also it is not the discourse I belittle, it the idiot that wishes to impose a law on the people that he has set up so he does not have to take part in it.

[smc]

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily.

Of course you are. My point is that to extrapolate from that to make a political point is ridiculous. I have a primary care physician and three specialists I see regularly. Each and every one of them thinks something quite different from you have posted. The physicians I know in the healthcare program at my university think otherwise, too.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake.

I never wrote anything that remotely corresponds to your quote above, so don't put words in my mouth ... even if by inference.

Also it is not the discourse I belittle, it the idiot that wishes to impose a law on the people that he has set up so he does not have to take part in it.

Of course it's the discourse that you belittle, denigrate, etc. By calling names and making facile generalizations, you diminish the quality of the discourse. Instead of discussing healthcare reform and the legislation on its merits, or exclusively on its merits, you resort to "Obummercare" and now, calling someone an idiot. Do you mean Obama? How do you suppose you would fare in a test against Obama using some of the standardized tests to measure if one is an "idiot" -- e.g., the standard IQ test that rates one who scores below 20 as an "idiot"?

[Rainrider]

Welcome to the site and to this thread. It's nice to have some input from someone who's actually in the healthcare business and to get their thoughts on what Obummercare will do. Is that what people in healthcare are calling it? lol Hopefully it will be repealed somehow, someway before it becomes yet another monstrous cancer on our nation that we can't get rid of like Social Security which will run out of money in 2037. How much further into debt will we go to fix that?

Around here yes every one calls it Obumercare. If a person had the time to hit on the more than 2000 pages of the bill they would soon find out why. The bill was so bad that any one that had the opportunity to vote to remove them self from having to take part in did so.
As you said about S.S. going bankrupt, this bill was pasted with the idea that if they tax pharmaceutical company's, Insurances company's, and hospitals, high enough they can pay for it. Not stopping to think this will drive up the cost, so it would cost even more to pay for it. On top of driving up the cost of insurance, they want to fin us for not having it. My bad they call it a tax. Now the large corporations did the math. They are going to drop all insurance from the benefits package, and pay the fin. They can see a savings of over 2mil a year. So we now have folks with insurance now, that will end up on the obumer plain. So once more the cost goes up. If I may use the words of one doctor, " This not the Obumer plain, it is the ho shit did not see that coming obumer plain. "
Now what most don't stop to look at is the cuts in coverage for teh elderly and the poor. Long term care will become a thing of the past, and so on as I posted before. This will end up with total government control of health care. They can even run a used car lot. I mean come on, the bad move they made with cash for clunkers, that still has not been paid for.
As for the remark I seen about how I would feel if my IQ test was placed beside Obmer's. Well not that bad I don't think. I may be dyslexic, and that enpeads my ability to get my thoughts from my head to my fingers, or find the right word in a spell check, but it in no way lowers my IQ. In fact it has forced me rely on comincents over book cents. Find a way to masher that and I know Obumer would be the one looking silly.

[Rainrider]

Of course you are. My point is that to extrapolate from that to make a political point is ridiculous. I have a primary care physician and three specialists I see regularly. Each and every one of them thinks something quite different from you have posted. The physicians I know in the healthcare program at my university think otherwise, too.

You must live in the North east.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "All generalizations are false, including this one."



I never wrote anything that remotely corresponds to your quote above, so don't put words in my mouth ... even if by inference.

Why not you seem be rather doing that.



Of course it's the discourse that you belittle, denigrate, etc. By calling names and making facile generalizations, you diminish the quality of the discourse. Instead of discussing healthcare reform and the legislation on its merits, or exclusively on its merits, you resort to "Obummercare" and now, calling someone an idiot. Do you mean Obama? How do you suppose you would fare in a test against Obama using some of the standardized tests to measure if one is an "idiot" -- e.g., the standard IQ test that rates one who scores below 20 as an "idiot"?

Yet it is Obama I am calling an idiot. Any one willing to push on the people any thing they know is not going to work is an Idiot. Besides all that, as I posted above, find a way to mesher comincents and I know I would out shine Obumer. Or as folks to point out, His name is an acronym for One Big Ass mistake America.

[smc]

Yet it is Obama I am calling an idiot. Any one willing to push on the people any thing they know is not going to work is an Idiot. Besides all that, as I posted above, find a way to mesher comincents and I know I would out shine Obumer. Or as folks to point out, His name is an acronym for One Big Ass mistake America.

Your responses don't even warrant rebuttal, since you write idiotic things suggesting that Obama is pushing something on the people that he knows is not going to work.

Truly, ignorance is bliss.

I would bet anything that you couldn't articulate an alternative to the healthcare legislation that would make any sense.

[ila]

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily. Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake...

Being a doctor does not necessarly make one knowledgeable about the intricacies of socialised medicine. It has never been done in the US so I rather doubt there are many doctors that have enough knowledge of the subject to speak intimately of it. One should actually examine how other countries with socialised healthcare operate before making blanket statements such as what you have posted.

[TracyCoxx]

What freaks me out is how the Egyptian government pretty much pulled the plug on the internet, to keep people from twittering and blackberrying and stuff.....imagine if that happens here.I will post a response to this in the thread "There Goes the Internet".

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

What freaks me out is how the Egyptian government pretty much pulled the plug on the internet, to keep people from twittering and blackberrying and stuff.....imagine if that happens here.

Same thing as what happens anywhere that that happens... The situation escalates as suddenly millions more people who were not angry enough to go out on the streets suddenly get the final shove over the edge.

A media blackout is pretty much the worst thing a government cos do, it's a sign of desperation and defeat, and it's the biggest incitement to people to take to the streets.

What would get your attention more? seeing riots on the TV news or the tv suddenly shutting down? When the internet suddenly turns off, it is basicly the government saying, 'every rumour you just heard about our collapse is true'. It's a pure gift to all protesters.

[Rainrider]

Being a doctor does not necessarly make one knowledgeable about the intricacies of socialised medicine. It has never been done in the US so I rather doubt there are many doctors that have enough knowledge of the subject to speak intimately of it. One should actually examine how other countries with socialised healthcare operate before making blanket statements such as what you have posted.

Will to truly understand thing one must have at lest some first hand knowledge of how it works. You know as well as I do that should I tell you how an 18 wheel works it would seem Greek to you. (Well if you never had to deal with one that is) Yet for some one that has spent better than 1/2 his life in or under one, it would be clear as a bell. I made this statement at work, that was when we found and printed a copy of the bill, before it was passed, and gave it real close look.
Now keep in mind I have said before I am dyslexic, so rather than take the week it would have taken me to really read it, I had some one read it to me, then I went back to the parts I wanted to really look at. So what I have to say about the parts of the bill I did study, come from my understanding of the thing.
The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

[Tread]

The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

I don?t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

I don?t know what is made with Obama care, but how can it be more expensive to your insurance payments? What are they doing wrong with the Obama care that it doesn?t get closer to other countries in price?
The cost to start this should be taken by the government, the trillion you (Tracy) mentioned. There is no surprise that this cost much at the beginning, but this should be amortized over time.

[randolph]

A Federal judge has struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, based on the stipulation that everyone must have healthcare or be fined. Since that requirement cannot be modified, the entire bill is struck down. He stated Congress does not have the authority to require people to have health insurance.
A single payer system, like Canada's would have avoided this problem.

[ila]

Will to truly understand thing one must have at lest some first hand knowledge of how it works. You know as well as I do that should I tell you how an 18 wheel works it would seem Greek to you. (Well if you never had to deal with one that is) Yet for some one that has spent better than 1/2 his life in or under one, it would be clear as a bell. I made this statement at work, that was when we found and printed a copy of the bill, before it was passed, and gave it real close look.
Now keep in mind I have said before I am dyslexic, so rather than take the week it would have taken me to really read it, I had some one read it to me, then I went back to the parts I wanted to really look at. So what I have to say about the parts of the bill I did study, come from my understanding of the thing.
The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

I can't speak for England, but Canada is not looking to replace the current healthcare system. Every government will always make minor changes and tweaks, but there is no movement to replace the system.

Now back to my original point in your quote and the first sentence of your quote. I wrote that just because one is a doctor in the US does not necessarily make that person an expert or even knowledgeable about socialized healthcare. One would actually have to work in socialized healthcare to be able to properly form an opinion and the majority of doctors in the US have not worked in socialized healthcare.

Next point; a great many countries in Europe also have socialized healthcare and it is functioning well in those countries.

Last point; There is a good chance that I know more about 18 wheel trucks than you do so don't start making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know.

[TracyCoxx]

A Federal judge has struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, based on the stipulation that everyone must have healthcare or be fined. Since that requirement cannot be modified, the entire bill is struck down. He stated Congress does not have the authority to require people to have health insurance.
A single payer system, like Canada's would have avoided this problem.

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

[Hedonistman]

All I can say is that I've never met any doctor in the US who was not in it for the money. I'm sure there are some,,, possibly even many, but I produced health care and related teleplays for the health care industry, and this quote from a recognizied top shelf surgeon, I think says it best " my patients are the stupidiest people I've ever met'. There will never be true reform until those who are sick can decide for themselves, how best to treat (spend on) their illnesses. No 3rd party system will ever approach self determination, about anything.

[smc]

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

The level of generalization is just so ridiculous as to be almost dismissable, were it not for the danger inherent in these generalizations. ANY OBJECTIVE PERSON? Give me a fuckin' break.

First off, the ruling is only about the "individual mandate" clause. Second, it's open to judicial interpretation ... the basis of how the system works. You are so hell-bent on seeing your views vindicated that you don't even stop to think about the full story.

The courts have given wide latitude to Congress to regulate markets, and that's what the individual mandate is about. The logic -- whether you agree with the law or not - is that a person without coverage who is hospitalized might run up huge medical bills that then would be absorbed by others with insurance or by taxpayers.

That one judge in a particular jurisidiction noted for a particular politican bent makes a ruling is no cause for such hyperbole. But it's what we've come to expect from you, Tracy, just like equating Congress with a dictatorship. In Egypt, 30 years of dictatorship has had the kind of consequences for people that you make a mockery of with your false equivalency.

It does, though, point once again to the underlying vitriol in your views that seems to make it impossible for you to sustain a rational discussion for more than a post or two.

[Trogdor]

All I can say is that I've never met any doctor in the US who was not in it for the money. I'm sure there are some,,, possibly even many, but I produced health care and related teleplays for the health care industry, and this quote from a recognizied top shelf surgeon, I think says it best " my patients are the stupidiest people I've ever met'. There will never be true reform until those who are sick can decide for themselves, how best to treat (spend on) their illnesses. No 3rd party system will ever approach self determination, about anything.

american should be able to seek other forms of medical treatment, other drugs and surgery for things. I seen parents threatened if they did not make their cancer stricken kids take chemo and radiation.....one teenager was forced by a judge to take it, despite the fact he did not want to....luckily public outcry forced this stupid (and pay off, I bet) judge to change his decision. Many of these people, ie politicians or FDA people, after leaving their current line of work, go on to be either lobbyists or the heads of various big pharma. And before some of you people (I've been hounded for saying this on both hung angels and hung devils), who most likely invest in pharma stocks, that some drugs and surgery can be useful and helpful...but there are many, many that don't work and are harmful.....like viox and avandia....the latter of which, I think, killed my dad....are poisons just made to make a quick buck (they make millions, if not billions off this stuff before they pull it off the market) and many scientists were bribed or threatened not to tell of the dangers. And that fat fuck, John Engler, the former MI governor, made it illegal to sue drug companies here....even if they are at fault.

People should be given choices on how to treat themselves, not not be limited to one or two. Anyone else agree with me on this, or am I just a misfit, more so? :drool:

[smc]

People should be given choices on how to treat themselves, not not be limited to one or two. Anyone else agree with me on this, or am I just a misfit, more so? :drool:

The pharmaceutical firms are, from a business standpoint, reprehensible profiteers who put profits ahead of everything.

To be forced to undergo certain treatments happens, but it is hardly the norm anywhere in the U.S. medical system. You really need to stop generalizing everything, Trogdor. When you see something you oppose, you can write about it without making it bigger than it really is. That only diminishes the value of your points and makes it easier for others to dismiss them.

However, separate from the pharma issue, who should pay when people show up at the emergency room with no insurance and needing care to reverse their "self-treatment" or their choices that may have been contrary to medical advice?

[TracyCoxx]

The level of generalization is just so ridiculous as to be almost dismissable

I thought you'd get a kick out of that. I know I can count on you not to dismiss it though. ;)

[TracyCoxx]

btw about the dictator comment, if I see a government that has a supermajority and uses that as a go-ahead to ram something as big as nationalized health care through when the public is telling them to stop then I call it as I see it. Yes they had a vote, but that was merely a formality.

[franalexes]

Two months ago the Democrat Attourney General of Maine said we did not have a case in the lawsuit against Obamacare.
Since our new Republican Governor joined the suit, and yesterdays decission, the news is NOT on the front page of the local paper ( blantantly Democrat) but tucked away inside on the health page. Now ain't that odd?

[randolph]

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

Because of the stranglehold of the healthcare industry, a national healthcare plan could not support itself unless everybody was paying into it. The young people who had minimal healthcare needs would support us olderfolks who need more care.
The only way we can have a "free" national healthcare plan is for the government to run it as a single payer and get the greedy profit obsessed healthcare providers out of it. Yes, it would be expensive. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be take care of it, however.

[Rainrider]

I can't speak for England, but Canada is not looking to replace the current healthcare system. Every government will always make minor changes and tweaks, but there is no movement to replace the system.

Now back to my original point in your quote and the first sentence of your quote. I wrote that just because one is a doctor in the US does not necessarily make that person an expert or even knowledgeable about socialized healthcare. One would actually have to work in socialized healthcare to be able to properly form an opinion and the majority of doctors in the US have not worked in socialized healthcare.

Next point; a great many countries in Europe also have socialized healthcare and it is functioning well in those countries.

Last point; There is a good chance that I know more about 18 wheel trucks than you do so don't start making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know.
Well to start with I did not make any assumption at all. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I said IF YOU HAD NEVER HAD TO DEAL WITH ONE> there for any assumption on that statement looks to be on your part not mine.

I will have to look for the web sight to be sure, though I do know that england is in fact looking for a way to one of 2 things, Cut cost, to make it more affordable, or find some way to raise the needed funds to pay for the health care as is. As it stands now, (should I find the web sight) you wil also see that many people in many of the places that do have socialized health care, can not get drugs they need, or in some cases the care they needed. The Government simply can not afford the cost.
This is why in Obumercare there is a close that gives the goverment the right to deny care. If you look up the text of the bill you will find this on page 380 lines 10and 11.

[Rainrider]

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

Got to love it. LOL

[Rainrider]

I don’t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealthcare/britnathealthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

[Tread]

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealthcare/britnathealthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:

There are some indications (however slight) that the seemingly inexorable rise of the socialistic mentality (along with its more virulent cousins, fascism and communism) may have reached their "high tide."

There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

[Rainrider]

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:



There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.



That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

If we are to bring down health cost in this nation, I feel it be best to start by stopping all the silly lawsuits that cost doctors and or hospitals well over 2 million a year to ether fight or just pay the person off. To bring this to an end, I would say if a person does sue another, and they loss. What ever they sued for they should have to pay out. Also we need more people with commonsense to sit on the jury. There simply is no way I would have said that McDonald's should have had to pay out any thing over some one spilling coffee on them self. Or that any one other than one doing the smoking is respectable for their getting COPD from the cigarettes. This nation needs to face the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. Not look for the fast buck by saying McDonald's made me fat. If they push away the fries, and don't eat food that is know to be fating, or just stooped eating at fast food, would they loss wight?
Now get me wrong, ( seems most every one want on here wants to make any one that does see things there way as the bad guy) I do not think a doctor should be allowed to make a blatant mistake and not pay for it. How ever to sue them for simply thinking you had a cold and it turned out to be allegories, now that going to fare. And yes that did happen right in my little town. The doctor rather than fight it, simply paid them off, and went on about his rat killing. I think he should have fought it my self. Then if you look at the pay out it was less than the cost to fight. So in a way it does add up. That would just be a first step. Next I would want to know why it is that in Mexico, you can get the same drug made by Johnson and Johnson, for less that 1/2 the price.
I could go on and on about the things I see wrong. And even if there is a legit reason for any of it, there has to be a way to fix it. Like killing some of the regulations faced by business in this nation. Lower taxes and fight hard to bring jobs back into this nation that have been shipped over sea's. Trust me I can on for days and even years about what is wrong in this nation. Every bit of would lead back to the government. Ether in taxes, NAFTA, the EPA, and so on.

[Trogdor]

The pharmaceutical firms are, from a business standpoint, reprehensible profiteers who put profits ahead of everything.

To be forced to undergo certain treatments happens, but it is hardly the norm anywhere in the U.S. medical system. You really need to stop generalizing everything, Trogdor. When you see something you oppose, you can write about it without making it bigger than it really is. That only diminishes the value of your points and makes it easier for others to dismiss them.


I am NOT generalizing.
Medical schools are run and operated by big pharma, and people, especially kids have been forced to undergo things like Chemo or vaccinations, with threats of social services after the parents and take away the kids. Also, when a cure, a legit cure, made of something that can not be patented, such as an herb or a mineral or something pretty much get silenced. Hell, the so-called war on cancer stared by Nixon in 1971 is a loosing battle, and with all these decades of making billions in cancer research shows to me there's going to be no cure, until someone finally puts pharma in its place.....


.....our paid bitches looking for real cures.....and if loosing profits because people can live longer, be healthy and not miserable....then pharma people simply need to, as John McCain said to disgruntled auto workers in 2000, to "find another job". Things like B17, apricots and apple seeds, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda to any joe sixpack....which is good, an anti acid, which is great to kill cancer) and so on can easily kill a cancer and save someone. Making one's body alkali switches off cancer production, pretty much telling the cancer cells to go fuck themselves.:respect:

FDA even had the AUDACITY to send a letter to the CEO of Diamond Walnuts and said they are in trouble because they had health benefits of walnuts on the package, including the fighting cancer, and because the packages said they can help fight cancer, the walnuts automatically became a 'drug' (Because the FDA said "Only a DRUG can treat an illness" and anything said, even a food, becomes a drug if aid to fight illness) and Diamond was found guilty of selling drugs without a license. Land of the free my white ass. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.
Shit, mammograms cause cancer......heat imaging is safe....no radiation damage and more accurate. Cat scans are horrible. The guy who made the prostate PSA test i saying it's not safe or effective. Hell, those trucks that haul fluoride, the same in dental care and drinking water have skull and cross bones...makes no sense to me to use a confirmed poison poison into drinking water and whatnot. It's like someone wants to make sure everyone stays sick.

FDA = Big Pharma's police force. I call them the health care mafia.

And if you want proof, I say go do a little independent research (mainstream medias are often sponsored by drug companies, so make it independent)

[smc]

I am NOT generalizing.
Medical schools are run and operated by big pharma, and people, especially kids have been forced to undergo things like Chemo or vaccinations, with threats of social services after the parents and take away the kids. Also, when a cure, a legit cure, made of something that can not be patented, such as an herb or a mineral or something pretty much get silenced. Hell, the so-called war on cancer stared by Nixon in 1971 is a loosing battle, and with all these decades of making billions in cancer research shows to me there's going to be no cure, until someone finally puts pharma in its place.....


.....our paid bitches looking for real cures.....and if loosing profits because people can live longer, be healthy and not miserable....then pharma people simply need to, as John McCain said to disgruntled auto workers in 2000, to "find another job". Things like B17, apricots and apple seeds, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda to any joe sixpack....which is good, an anti acid, which is great to kill cancer) and so on can easily kill a cancer and save someone. Making one's body alkali switches off cancer production, pretty much telling the cancer cells to go fuck themselves.:respect:

FDA even had the AUDACITY to send a letter to the CEO of Diamond Walnuts and said they are in trouble because they had health benefits of walnuts on the package, including the fighting cancer, and because the packages said they can help fight cancer, the walnuts automatically became a 'drug' (Because the FDA said "Only a DRUG can treat an illness" and anything said, even a food, becomes a drug if aid to fight illness) and Diamond was found guilty of selling drugs without a license. Land of the free my white ass. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.
Shit, mammograms cause cancer......heat imaging is safe....no radiation damage and more accurate. Cat scans are horrible. The guy who made the prostate PSA test i saying it's not safe or effective. Hell, those trucks that haul fluoride, the same in dental care and drinking water have skull and cross bones...makes no sense to me to use a confirmed poison poison into drinking water and whatnot. It's like someone wants to make sure everyone stays sick.

FDA = Big Pharma's police force. I call them the health care mafia.

And if you want proof, I say go do a little independent research (mainstream medias are often sponsored by drug companies, so make it independent)

I will let other moderators address your last point. I've put in bold what I will address here.

You write that you don't generalize, and then you proceed to make a ridiculous generalization. There is no doubt that the evil hand of the pharmaceutical companies runs rampant in many medical schools. But by generalizing, you impugn every doctor and medical student at these schools. At medical schools such as those where I live, there is a continuing ethical battle the hand of pharma and the work of the school. It plays out in public with commissions and rules and rewriting of rules and lawsuits and so on. It plays out behind the scenes in students' lives -- I know some of them -- who get lucrative summer positions (summer positions with hospitals and pharma firms are a key perk of medical school) and others risking their financial stability to refuse to work for pharma.

To write a generalization like "medical schools are run and operated by big pharma" is not a generalization makes it difficult to take seriously everything else you write. Which is too bad.

[Tread]

If we are to bring down health cost in this nation, ...
...
I could go on and on about the things I see wrong. And even if there is a legit reason for any of it, there has to be a way to fix it. Like killing some of the regulations faced by business in this nation. Lower taxes and fight hard to bring jobs back into this nation that have been shipped over sea's. Trust me I can on for days and even years about what is wrong in this nation. Every bit of would lead back to the government. Ether in taxes, NAFTA, the EPA, and so on.

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can?t compete with the low wages of some countries. It?s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or ?inventing? new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.
Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

[Rainrider]

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can’t compete with the low wages of some countries. It’s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or “inventing” new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.



Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) It would take me some time to put anything together that would have a chance of working. Though give some time I bet I can. The place to start would be looking back to see just what got them moving over sea's in the first place. Though I know it had to with the drop of both import and export tax, I also know there was a lot more to it than that. This is not something we can just put a bandage on.

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.
Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. They now have lets say 1000 people working for them. They are paying out 100,000 a year to help the employees with health coverage. Now under Obama care, they can keep paying out the 100,000 or drop alll coverage and pay out only 10,000 a year to cover the fines. What would you do? So given that almost all will drop any coverage they now keep, you have another 1000 people that will be forced to except Obama care. Add to that the some, (lets make the math easy here, ) 1000 others like X Inc that will do the same, and the cost keeps going up. I am not talking the cost of care, I am talking the cost to the tax payer. The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

[Tread]

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) ?

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.

But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. ?
? The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don?t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can?t be that simple and stupid.
I don?t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

[randolph]

We had full employment a few years back. True, alot of it was in the building industry. What pisses me off, is we gave billions to the banks so they could loan money to companies so they would hire more workers. The problem is that the companies aren't going to hire more workers unless there is more demand for their goods. So the money sits there while the bankers take huge bonuses with our money.
It's a backasswards situation. With all that money the government could have organized massive reconstruction projects (like WPA in 1930s) to hire the unemployed to build and repair infrastructure. Once people had jobs and income, they could buy more stuff causing the companies to hire more employees to meet the increased demand.
Seems simple doesn't it?
So why hasn't Obama implemented such a program?
Guess who really runs the country.

[TracyCoxx]

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

[desirouspussy]

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

Ever considered becoming a comedian, Tracy?

[randolph]

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

[TracyCoxx]

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

No, only 13% of americans want to keep the healthcare bill as it is. 46% not only want to change it but want it gone. The Tea Party movement was a grass roots organization that arose in part because the public did not want nationalized health care. Most Obama supporters voted for him because of his promise of Hope & Change. I don't know about hope. His stimulus packages did nothing for unemployment, and left us further in debt. How does that equal hope? But it definitely is a change so I'll give him points for that. People voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush. The fact that John McCain wasn't George Bush either didn't seem to occur to them. I saw NO evidence that people actually voted for Obama because of actual policies that he supported. The media never asked Obama the hard questions. They were too busy ooohing and aahhing over the tingle going up their leg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPZdBv_F18A).

[smc]

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

[Rainrider]

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

Well as I said it would take some time. Tax cuts by them self won't bring the jobs back, though with the use of other things like import taxes and so on we might be able to.

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

Well that makes it even better. I am always talking badly of how things are done in this nation.



But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

To the individual the cost would go up, as the hospitals rais the cost of care to pay the new tax placed on them so the Feds could bring what would be needed to pay for every one Government insurances.

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don’t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can’t be that simple and stupid.

Companies now offer a benefits package. The insurances is not forced on you can ether take or simply opt out. They do this to attract new employees. After all the benefits package is added into your wages, only you never see the cash. Let try to show it this way. If you get your health insurance, and it cost you 500 a mouth, then your company offers you the same coverage for 200, they pay the other 300, then you just got a raise of 300 a mouth.
Now with Obama care if that same company drops all insurance from the benefits package. Opting to pay the tax/ fine imposed on them, it would drop their cost to some thing like 150 per mouth per employ. A savings of 150 per mouth per employ. Their employees still get health insurances through Obama care, and the company saves 1/2 of they had been paing out.

I don’t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.

[randolph]

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.

[Rainrider]

No, only 13% of americans want to keep the healthcare bill as it is. 46% not only want to change it but want it gone. The Tea Party movement was a grass roots organization that arose in part because the public did not want nationalized health care. Most Obama supporters voted for him because of his promise of Hope & Change. I don't know about hope. His stimulus packages did nothing for unemployment, and left us further in debt. How does that equal hope? But it definitely is a change so I'll give him points for that. People voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush. The fact that John McCain wasn't George Bush either didn't seem to occur to them. I saw NO evidence that people actually voted for Obama because of actual policies that he supported. The media never asked Obama the hard questions. They were too busy ooohing and aahhing over the tingle going up their leg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPZdBv_F18A).

I think that tingle was going the other way. Just a little worm tete to keep them going.
I seen a thing on Fox news, ( keep in mind I dont trust any news ) They ask people what they knew about Obama, and not person could think of any thing other than it was the guy they seen TV all the time. Uninformed votes is the biggest treat to this nation as a whole.

[randolph]

Here is an excerpt of the judge's conclusion:
The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled ?The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.?


The judge obviously was reluctant to rule it unconstitutional and realized there is an urgent need to have affordable health care in this country.

[TracyCoxx]

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:

Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985)

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.The facts are now straight.

[smc]

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:



The facts are now straight.

Bottom line: the judge DID NOT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION. Now the facts are really straight.

[randolph]

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

[smc]

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

The bill was written without the usual "separability" clause that makes it possible for a judge to rule on parts of a law that is challenged rather than on the entire law. This may or may not have been done deliberately (that is a separate discussion). Hence, the judge's ruling is on the entire law.

He could have chosen to STOP the law's implementation immediately by issuing an injunction. He did not. There are arguments among lawyers and talking heads about the judge's intent, but it is clear that however he may define various words, he did not enjoin the government from its immediate implementation of the law, which he could have done and which he could have made clear.

The Justice Department considers the ruling to be a declarative one that allows for the implementation of the law as the case makes its way higher, to the Supreme Court (remember, the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014). Some of the states that have sued the federal government consider the ruling to be more than declarative, and are clamoring for the immediate halt to implementation.

It is notable that the judge has NOT changed his ruling. It would be easy for a state that thinks he ruled to enjoin the law and stop its implementation immediately to go back to his court and ask for him to make this clear. That has not happened, precisely for the reason I stated earlier. Judge Vinson is acting in accord with the spirit of the statutes and his judicial authority. He seems to be recognizing the absurdity of enjoining something that hasn't yet gone into effect (in other words, how can you stop something that hasn't yet started?). And, by virtue of his statement in the ruling quoted by Randolph earlier, he recognizes the political reality that there are provisions in the law that, to stop their implementation (e.g., the provision that disallows an insurance company from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition), would not only wreak havoc but -- he implies -- are probably constitutional (remember, this bill lacked the "separability" clause).

Vinson may be an "activist judge" -- as some proponents of the law have claimed -- but he surely is no dummy.

[Tread]

To the individual the cost would go up, as the hospitals rais the cost of care to pay the new tax placed on them so the Feds could bring what would be needed to pay for every one Government insurances.

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn?t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

Companies now offer a benefits package. The insurances is not forced on you can ether take or simply opt out. They do this to attract new employees. After all the benefits package is added into your wages, only you never see the cash. Let try to show it this way. If you get your health insurance, and it cost you 500 a mouth, then your company offers you the same coverage for 200, they pay the other 300, then you just got a raise of 300 a mouth.
Now with Obama care if that same company drops all insurance from the benefits package. Opting to pay the tax/ fine imposed on them, it would drop their cost to some thing like 150 per mouth per employ. A savings of 150 per mouth per employ. Their employees still get health insurances through Obama care, and the company saves 1/2 of they had been paing out.

But there are other companies that didn?t/don?t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don?t have to pay less with Obama care?

(I?m not sure if it shines through enough that I?m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.

The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don?t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

[Rainrider]

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn’t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

The new tax. With any added cost it is always passed on to the consumer. Simple economics 101.

But there are other companies that didn’t/don’t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don’t have to pay less with Obama care?
In this nation if you have less than 10 people working for you, you have no need to offer Heath care. SO you are almost right. Though with this bill most small businesses will be forced out, ether do to not being able to provide HCI (Heath care Insurance) Or the tax imposed on them for not doing so. Ether way they will be shut down. This needless to say leads to higher unemployment.
(I’m not sure if it shines through enough that I’m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)



The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don’t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

Well you could turn your car in to any car company that wanted take part. Toyoda, Honda, G.M. Ford. It was more an attempt to gt us out of the SUV and into Government approved cars. You know going green thanks to the lie of Global worming.
I had to look that up to make sure if I was right or wrong.
By the way I do not know how to do the reply where it splits up my rely inside your post. I did get it once only now seem I cant. SO my reply in bold inside of your.

[Tread]

Rainrider I asked you if you can explain me why it gets more expensive, but you only describe me things from a single view point. You let other positions out, and ignore them. If every tax payer would have to pay more, the whole idea of affordable health insurance for everyone would go wrong. It can?t be that simple and stupid.

Can you, or are you willing to tell me the full story why you think it gets more expensive in long term, or not? If you only telling me these single view shreds, we can stop here. That will lead nowhere.


You know going green thanks to the lie of Global worming.

Global warming is no lie. There is the question how much mankind has to do with it. If you have any creditable prove for that statement, you could post it in the global warming thread.

By the way I do not know how to do the reply where it splits up my rely inside your post. I did get it once only now seem I cant. SO my reply in bold inside of your.

Copy and paste or type in the quote commands, so that the paragraph you want to quote is implemented by the quote commands. For further information Click here (http://forum.transladyboy.com/misc.php?do=bbcode).

[TracyCoxx]

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief".
The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

[randolph]

The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

[ila]

After reading the exchanges between Tracy and smc all I can think of is that too many lawyers have so screwed up the laws that it's impossible for the average person to be able to understand what has really happened. It's not just the most recent court decision on healthcare in the US, but laws in general. How can the public be expected to support or disagree with any politician when the wording of judgments and laws are so full of legalese?

I am certainly not a stupid person (and in fact consider myself to be quite intelligent), but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the judgment really is on the lates court ruling over US healthcare.

[smc]

After reading the exchanges between Tracy and smc all I can think of is that too many lawyers have so screwed up the laws that it's impossible for the average person to be able to understand what has really happened. It's not just the most recent court decision on healthcare in the US, but laws in general. How can the public be expected to support or disagree with any politician when the wording of judgments and laws are so full of legalese?

I am certainly not a stupid person (and in fact consider myself to be quite intelligent), but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the judgment really is on the lates court ruling over US healthcare.

When in doubt, the smart route is to assume that I am correct. :lol:

And remember the old Spanish proverb: "It is better to be a mouse in a cat's mouth than a man in a lawyer's hands."

[TracyCoxx]

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

The judge cleverly used Obama's own words. The mandate that all citizens must participate is not separable from the bill. Therefore he said the whole bill must be struck down.

[TracyCoxx]

Harry Reid has been chastising republicans about their position on the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling. He says "We can't back out on the money we owe the rest of the world."

Well, we don't have to. We can pay the money we owe, and stop payments towards Obamacare (especially since it is currently unconstitutional), and not pay out the rest of the several stimulus packages that have been enacted. That would easily cover it.

Perhaps Senator Reid would take his beloved Obama's advice on the matter:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America?s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can?t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government?s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ?trillion? with a ?T.? That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President?s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. (actually it's increased around $5 trillion - Who would sign off on such debt increases?)

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we?ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children?s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America?s priorities.

Don't believe him Senator Reid? Well there's another person who I think you'd find yourself forced to agree with about the matter:

If my [Democrat] friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the [Democrat] majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it?s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That?s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation?s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they?re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.
(Republican has been changed to Democrat to better apply the economic lesson to this situation)

I hope this clarifies things for you Senator Reid. You should be glad that the Republicans have finally heard Senator Reid and Barack Obama.

[smc]

The judge cleverly used Obama's own words. The mandate that all citizens must participate is not separable from the bill. Therefore he said the whole bill must be struck down.

It should be noted that this is one judge in one federal court district. Other federal judges have thrown similar suits out of court. Nothing has been settled.

[TracyCoxx]

As a matter of principle, Obama should recall his 2012 budget. In his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size. But then when he campaigned, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first year. In reality it quadrupled. Forgive me if I don't buy even his weak promises of deficit reduction this year.

[randolph]

If you look at overall government spending, taking into account spending by states, overall spending does not show a huge spike but a steady rise. Granted the rise is enormous over the past ten years. We have been living on borrowed money for a long time. All the special interests will protect their cut to the end.

[Derek1968]

Check out Wisconsin today-- 20,000 people against the Republican Governor's denial of the right to publicly protest on the part of workers and his promise to remove collective bargaining rights from state employees.

Where have you been since 2001?

Bush's tax cuts and war spent Clinton's surplus and increased the U.S debt to incredible levels. Just like Reagan's tax cuts did.

Republicans never will touch the Defense Budget. Why not?

[TracyCoxx]

Republicans never will touch the Defense Budget. Why not?Have you heard of the peace dividend from George Bush Sr? Republicans will cut defense spending when it makes sense. BO has us in some kind of war with Afghanistan. Not really sure what that's all about, but you don't cut defense when you're in a war.

But speaking of not touching something. Why have you not mentioned the democrats refusal to touch entitlement programs which dwarf defense? Not only do they never touch them, but they continuously add to them.

[smc]

Have you heard of the peace dividend from George Bush Sr? Republicans will cut defense spending when it makes sense. BO has us in some kind of war with Afghanistan. Not really sure what that's all about, but you don't cut defense when you're in a war.

But speaking of not touching something. Why have you not mentioned the democrats refusal to touch entitlement programs which dwarf defense? Not only do they never touch them, but they continuously add to them.

I'm all for the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, but even Tracy knows that this war was inherited by Obama, not started by him. Of course, why let facts get in the way when you have a point to make (even if that point is inexplicable)?

[randolph]

Tracy But speaking of not touching something. Why have you not mentioned the democrats refusal to touch entitlement programs which dwarf defense? Not only do they never touch them, but they continuously add to

Really! The Pentagon budget exceeds all other Federal expenses combined, over 50% of the budget. The biggest welfare program the world has ever seen. Fuck market capitalism, lets just spend our money on useless stupid military hardware and fat ass generals. Our massive cold war style military is an abject failure at dealing with current terrorist reality. :frown:

[franalexes]

I hope they don't cut any scientific research on how to improve the plastic ends on shoe laces.:frown:

[The Conquistador]

Tracy

Really! The Pentagon budget exceeds all other Federal expenses combined, over 50% of the budget. The biggest welfare program the world has ever seen. Fuck market capitalism, lets just spend our money on useless stupid military hardware and fat ass generals. Our massive cold war style military is an abject failure at dealing with current terrorist reality. :frown:

Wrong! Health and Human Services has the most expenses.

There are four things that cost us money...

1) Medicare
2) Military Spending
3) Social Security
4) Interest(Treasury Dept.)

Any conversation of reduction that does not focus on these 4 things is pretty much pointless.

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy

Really! The Pentagon budget exceeds all other Federal expenses combined, over 50% of the budget. The biggest welfare program the world has ever seen. Fuck market capitalism, lets just spend our money on useless stupid military hardware and fat ass generals. Our massive cold war style military is an abject failure at dealing with current terrorist reality. :frown:

Oops, make that 23%

[randolph]

Oops, make that 23%

I apologize. The post I read was wrong and I should have checked it out. :blush:

[randolph]

I apologize. The post I read was wrong and I should have checked it out. :blush:


Actually, I should have pointed out that the plus fifty percent applied to discretionary spending not the total budget.
The point is that the military spending is discretionary so if we seriously want to get out of this budget hole, we need to cut military spending. Our Congress is not willing to do that. Are they hostages to the military industrial complex? Eisenhower would be shocked and appalled.

[franalexes]

Wrong! Health and Human Services has the most expenses.

There are four things that cost us money...

1) Medicare
2) Military Spending
3) Social Security
4) Interest(Treasury Dept.)

Any conversation of reduction that does not focus on these 4 things is pretty much pointless.

Don't you just hate it when someone brings all the facts into a discussion?:frown:

[Mel Asher]

Well, it's much the same on this side of the Atlantic too.

Might even be symptomatic of capitalism itself, except that there are too many nominally-Democratic Totalitarian governments which do not !

[TracyCoxx]

Actually, I should have pointed out that the plus fifty percent applied to discretionary spending not the total budget.
The point is that the military spending is discretionary so if we seriously want to get out of this budget hole, we need to cut military spending. Our Congress is not willing to do that. Are they hostages to the military industrial complex? Eisenhower would be shocked and appalled.

I'm not sure where your source came from (it doesn't even have a year on it, or even a country for that matter lol), and to tell the truth, I'm not sure where my pie chart came from. So I went to the horses mouth here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-the-future/interactive-budget

Since it's not in a convenient pie chart I made my own (you can check the numbers if you like, I didn't fudge anything. Just mouse over the categories and see the numbers there). And then I made another one lumping all the welfare programs into one category.

You say, or your source says, that defense is discretionary. I would argue that maybe some of it is discretionary, but for a large country, full of resources like the US, it's mandatory.

Defense is 19.27% and welfare programs are a whopping 60.84% of the budget. Some can certainly be cut from defense... when we're not at war, but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

[smc]

... You say, or your source says, that defense is discretionary. I would argue that maybe some of it is discretionary, but for a large country, full of resources like the US, it's mandatory.

The term "discretionary spending" has a very specific meaning in economics and in government fiscal policy, whether in this country or anywhere else. It refers to spending about which the spender can make choices. Hence, it is optional, not mandatory -- no matter how important any one individual may think it is.

That is why you never hear any mention of defense spending in the specific discussion of "mandates." Mandatory spending in this context includes the so-called "entitlement programs" and spending that is specifically required by law (e.g., a federal requirement that a state spend on a particular thing or program).

[smc]

Defense is 19.27% and welfare programs are a whopping 60.84% of the budget. Some can certainly be cut from defense... when we're not at war, but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

How about corporate welfare? It doesn't show up as an entitlement program in the budget, but is hidden in hundreds of places via tax loopholes and subsidies given to the corporations by the politicians they've bought. Are you for cutting every single penny of that? If not, can you justify the expenditure of a single penny of corporate welfare?

[randolph]

OK this is from: National Priorities.org
The Federal Budget can be divided into two types of spending according to how Congress appropriates the money: discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year. Total Budget: $3.64 trillion Mandatory: $2.1 trillion Discretionary: $1.2 trillion Interest on Debt $247 billion Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2011. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/) In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on programs which are discretionary. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.
The discretionary budget is about one-third of total federal spending. The chart below indicates how discretionary spending was divided up in fiscal year 2011.
58 percent of the discretionary budget in FY 2011 is "national defense," a government-defined function area that roughly corresponds in common parlance as "military." However, this category does not include foreign military financing, security assistance, and other programs commonly thought of as military. Other types of discretionary spending include the budget for education, many health programs, and housing assistance.
In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.
In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.

[TracyCoxx]

Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year.
Ok, if that's the definition, then that's the definition. Still, suppose we have Obama and a democrat congress for another 4 years after 2012 and our debt has gone up another $8 trillion or so. The dollar collapses and our economy is sent into a serious tailspin. The government goes into emergency budget cutting mode. Entire departments are now being cut. I guarantee you we will still have a military, because we must have a military. But anyways, on with the technical definitions...

In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.Yeah, after he raises the deficit several $trillion, THEN let's freeze it lol. And that's only if you believe him. As I said above, in his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". At least he has a sense of humor right? He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size.

In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.Sorry, but that does not fulfill BO's promise and frankly after raising the debt $5 trillion in the last 5 years, cutting the debt $1.3 trillion in 3 years is not adequate. What the republicans are proposing isn't even adequate. Our government needs to get serious about ELIMINATING the fucking debt! If we have to borrow to maintain our lifestyle, then something is wrong and that is unsustainable. We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

[smc]

... We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

Nice dodge, Tracy. Bring up the welfare issue again but don't answer the question about corporate welfare.

[TracyCoxx]

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

[smc]

CORPORATE WELFARE

Some people who like to beat up on the notion of the "welfare state" target only the disadvantaged, but remain silent on corporate welfare. We have people on this site who remain silent on this topic while they insult poor people about purchasing $90 shoes and generally imply that the most vulnerable in society are indolent and don't care about their families.

The Cato Institute is a think tank in Washington that promotes "limited government" and "free markets." Here's the intro to a Cato Institute report from 2007:

The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses

by Stephen Slivinski

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute and author of Buck Wild: How the Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government (2006).

Published on May 14, 2007

The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities ? expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" ? in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, "corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.

Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs continue to fund the wealthiest farmers.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

You can download the full report here:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

[ila]

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda...


Perhaps, Tracy, you could explain this for all of us non-American members. Your country's budget, from what I've read, is currently in the House of Representatives where, from what I understand, it won't pass without a lot of spending being taken out. How does it shutdown the government if it doesn't pass the House of Representatives? Does the budget go back to your president so that he can make requested changes or does the budget get passed on to the Senate so that it can be debated and voted upon there?

[smc]

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

Perhaps, Tracy, you could explain this for all of us non-American members. Your country's budget, from what I've read, is currently in the House of Representatives where, from what I understand, it won't pass without a lot of spending being taken out. How does it shutdown the government if it doesn't pass the House of Representatives? Does the budget go back to your president so that he can make requested changes or does the budget get passed on to the Senate so that it can be debated and voted upon there?

Tracy's post is disingenuous at best. By writing "neither side will give," Tracy -- as Tracy is wont to do in multiple posts throughout this site -- seeks to establish a false moral equivalency between the actions of two sides. In fact, there is only one side that would be responsible for shutting down the government, were it to happen: the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. One need only look at U.S. political history from 1992, when the Republicans last pulled this stunt, to see both what it means for the party that does it but more important the terrible toll it takes on the most vulnerable people in society.

As to ila's question, the House must pass a budget. It then goes to the Senate, where it will not likely pass. But if it does, it then goes to the president for a signature. The president has promised to veto (i.e., not sign) the budget that the House will likely pass. To override that veto requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which is next to impossible.

[ila]

...As to ila's question, the House must pass a budget. It then goes to the Senate, where it will not likely pass. But if it does, it then goes to the president for a signature. The president has promised to veto (i.e., not sign) the budget that the House will likely pass. To override that veto requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which is next to impossible.

Thanks, smc, now I understand.

[scott441]

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

You know what i find amazing in this debate on healthcare is, the health industry always says "We don't make any money on this", hospitals are the same, no one makes any money, we just get by. Doctors too say the same. You know for an industry that makes no money, they sure are fighting hard to stop this. Lets look at healthcare in a new way. They make sure they empty your bank account if your sick, and have to go to the hospital. They are making billions on your, mothers cancer, or your grannies bad joints. I notice you say its the will of the American people, your math is like most of your quote, full of Russ,

[Enoch Root]

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

In the words of Tavis Smiley: "I believe budgets are moral documents."

The US now finds itself riddled with money problems and what is the solution the Tea Party and others like yourself prefer? To balance the budget "on the backs of the poor" as Smiley said. Never mind the assistance these people need given their poverty. Let us simply attack them and their families. Let us cut funding for education and break the already near-dead unions. They are evil after all. Any man or woman who demands a fair chance, who demands good pay, any group of people who band together into a union in order to better be able to fight against exploitation is evil. These things get in the way or profit, after all.

And never mind all the money given to corporations. God forbid the government start representing the needs and aspirations of the people. The unwashed masses undoubtedly are poor because they want to be and the rich are rich because they work all those tens of thousands of hours that it takes the average worker to make anything like a CEO makes in a year. The poor like being poor don't they? There's lots of them and they've been around for a long time. That they are poor cannot possibly be caused by socioeconomic factors beyond their control, right?

It's funny--not sitcom funny, but still--it is always the working people who get put on the chopping block when things go bad. But the rich always get away. They never get blamed. The Republicans skated scot free when the economy went up thanks to the Bush tax cuts--it's really tax spending: all the money the rich get is taken from the people--thanks to the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wall Street types lie to the people and sell them bad loans--loans the people would not have to take had private industry not moved elsewhere to the planet to exploit peoples in countries without worker's rights on the one hand and frozen wages on the other, but upper management kept reaping ever more obscene rewards--but do any of these assholes go to jail? No. Instead the problem gets blamed on workers leading ever more desperate lives--their work unsatisfying, the pay atrocious, personal lives crumbling because of the financial pressure and the long work hours which get longer. And does the Republican Party, the party of unapologetic greed, receive any of the blame it so richly deserves? No. More funny: the Republicans are always talking about preserving the family and family values yet their fiscal policies have largely chipped away at the middle class, which is the same as destroying one family after another. Reagan started it. Bush perfected it.

I wonder Tracy: you were against the stimulus but are you for corporate welfare? It would be quite the case of hypocrisy if you were for corporate welfare--which includes the military industrial complex--since the stimulus and welfare are ultimately the same thing.

[randolph]

Democrats--Lets make everybody happy, regardless the cost.:censored:

Republicans--fuck the poor, lets make the rich happy, regardless the cost.:censored:

[smc]

Democrats--Lets make everybody happy, regardless the cost.:censored:

Republicans--fuck the poor, lets make the rich happy, regardless the cost.:censored:

So very wrong about the Democrats.

More accurate: let's serve our rich masters in a different way that recognizes that if you openly campaign for fucking the poor, they may vote for you sometimes (because Americans are notorious for voting against their interests), but they may also decide to fuck you (which is why we have Social Security, unemployment insurance, and other New Deal legislation rather than a Depression-era revolution). I've always thought Republicans were way more honest about whose interests they serve than are Democrats. In both cases, though, it's not my interests.

[randolph]

So very wrong about the Democrats.

More accurate: let's serve our rich masters in a different way that recognizes that if you openly campaign for fucking the poor, they may vote for you sometimes (because Americans are notorious for voting against their interests), but they may also decide to fuck you (which is why we have Social Security, unemployment insurance, and other New Deal legislation rather than a Depression-era revolution). I've always thought Republicans were way more honest about whose interests they serve than are Democrats. In both cases, though, it's not my interests.

Looks like the cost is starting to make everybody unhappy.

[TracyCoxx]

You know what i find amazing in this debate on healthcare is, the health industry always says "We don't make any money on this", hospitals are the same, no one makes any money, we just get by. Doctors too say the same. You know for an industry that makes no money, they sure are fighting hard to stop this.
Because doctors don't want a load of bureaucratic BS to get between them and their patients.

Lets look at healthcare in a new way. They make sure they empty your bank account if your sick, and have to go to the hospital. They are making billions on your, mothers cancer, or your grannies bad joints.
This is obviously full of emotion and devoid of any objectivity. To which no response will be heard.

I notice you say its the will of the American people, your math is like most of your quote, full of Russ,According to the polls, about 10% of Americans want to health care bill to stay as it is, and 56% want it repealed. Put that in your calculator.

[ila]

I would think that a lot of the resistance to any US universal healthcare is fear of the unknown. I've read and heard the debate in many different media and there seems to be a lot of fearmongering on both the pro and con sides.

[TracyCoxx]

In the words of Tavis Smiley: "I believe budgets are moral documents."

The US now finds itself riddled with money problems and what is the solution the Tea Party and others like yourself prefer? To balance the budget "on the backs of the poor" as Smiley said.

I have said to you and others on this forum before, I admit capitalism isn't for everyone. But here in America, that's what we have. You never told me which country you would rather live in. So let's start with France.

How to Move to Paris with No Money
Paris is possible. You do not need a French relative or a dowry of millions. You only need ingenuity and thirst. If you?ve got those, this storied city, the matron saint of expatriation, will be yours.

This guide is for Americans with insufficient funds and little tolerance for endless preparation (or any preparation), for those who rely on that special brand of luck crossed with tenacity and patience. Here?s how to begin: Save no money. Make no plans. Just get on the plane.

Once you get there, as an American passport-holder you?ll have 90 days before your tourist visa expires, so you?d better hit the ground running. Read the rest here: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/destination-guides/how-to-move-to-paris-with-no-money (http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/destination-guides/how-to-move-to-paris-with-no-money/)
Bon voyage.

I wonder Tracy: you were against the stimulus but are you for corporate welfare? It would be quite the case of hypocrisy if you were for corporate welfare--which includes the military industrial complex--since the stimulus and welfare are ultimately the same thing.When did I ever say I was for corporate welfare? I think bailing out car companies and financial institutions is ok, as long as it's in the form of a loan, and they don't try and take over the company's operations. As for funding the military industry, it's not welfare if it's paying for goods and services.

[TracyCoxx]

I would think that a lot of the resistance to any US universal healthcare is fear of the unknown. I've read and heard the debate in many different media and there seems to be a lot of fearmongering on both the pro and con sides.

It goes against the Constitution. The government can regulate actions such as driving or commerce etc, but the government cannot regulate inaction, such as deciding not to buy health care.

[TracyCoxx]

Democrats--Lets make everybody happy, regardless the cost.:censored:

Republicans--fuck the poor, lets make the rich happy, regardless the cost.:censored:

You can't make everybody happy, so that's going to be pretty damn expensive. And the republican's philosophy is more like teach a person to fish rather than giving them a handout.

[smc]

According to the polls, about 10% of Americans want to health care bill to stay as it is, and 56% want it repealed. Put that in your calculator.

Once again, Tracy proves that Tracy will twist anything in an attempt to prove a point. This undoubtedly comes from the latest Rasmussen poll, released today (February 21, 2010).

Here's what it says on the Rasmussen Reports own page:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty percent (40%) oppose repeal of the law, including 27% who are Strongly Opposed."

Regarding Rasmussen, other pollsters who have never been accused by anyone of having a bias often speak of Rasmussen as being biased. Many news organizations -- also, not Fox or MSNBC, but ones that are not typically accused of having a bias -- will not cite Rasmussen polls because the surveys it conducts are automated (known as IVRs for "interactive voice response") rather than the kind of live telephone interview polls that are used by organizations like Gallup, Pew Research, Quinnipiac University, and the major newspapers and television networks.

During 2010 election polling, some Rasmussen polls were revealed to have asked only self-identified Republican voters about congressional races. Do you think the Republican would come out on top in such polls? :yes:

[smc]

When did I ever say I was for corporate welfare? I think bailing out car companies and financial institutions is ok, as long as it's in the form of a loan, and they don't try and take over the company's operations. As for funding the military industry, it's not welfare if it's paying for goods and services.

TLB Forum Members, you must read very carefully to uncover the Tracy Coxx method of deflecting a point that Tracy can't really answer. I started the questioning about corporate welfare, specifically putting it in the Tracy context: Tracy writing baseless things about indolent people who are presumably on welfare and a major cause of the condition of the U.S. government's finances. I posed a question: will Tracy state unequivocally that all corporate welfare must end? All the subsidies, special tax loopholes, etc., all of which exist because the corporations buy these laws via the politicans they own -- of BOTH parties.

Tracy doesn't answer. As his Tracy's wont, Tracy answers questions with questions: "When did I ever say __________?" (fill in the blank).

This method is meant to dissemble, not enlighten. It is meant to avoid, not discuss. It is meant to hide, not defend one's views.

Review all of Tracy's posts, and you will find this method running like a thread through them.

[Enoch Root]

Tracy,

You wrote: “I have said to you and others on this forum before, I admit capitalism isn't for everyone. But here in America, that's what we have. You never told me which country you would rather live in. So let's start with France.” To deal with stupid issues first: you are diverting attention from the issue at hand by brushing me off because I don’t live in a fair country. Stating that accomplishes nothing, Tracy. But I’ll answer anyway and the answer is in two parts. 1) I would prefer to live in my homeland of Puerto Rico, but I would like this country to belong to its people. For it to belong to me and my compatriots it is necessary that the American Empire leave us alone. Further, it is necessary for private industry to stop exploiting my brothers. My country is a colony of the American Empire. How ironic! The 13 colonies that rebelled against empire and became a nation is now an empire itself! 2) I shouldn’t have to move somewhere else—and neither should anybody else have to move—because no country has the right to exploit its people.

To expand further on the quote provided: the attitude expressed by the quote is easily summarized as “fuck the poor.” “It’s not for everyone. It’s poor people’s fault they are poor. They like being poor. What other explanation is there for it?” Do you think people should just accept their exploitation? Capitalism isn’t for everyone but it still depends on a pool of easily exploited people. Capitalism is only for the ruling class. Everyone else is treated like an object, like a tool, like an inferior. You are telling people to be quiet because, after all, “in America, [capitalism is] what we have.” You shrug your shoulders and you shrug off any responsibility for the well-being of your compatriots.

Further, your directing me to France is part of the childish and ridiculous disdain people like you have for social democracies. Sending me off to France in no way addresses the inequalities of my homeland and the inequalities of the US.

And Tracy, stop it with these ridiculous tricks. I never said you were for corporate welfare. I asked you if you were for corporate welfare. I wanted an answer from you.

The military industrial complex is a beast fed by corporate welfare. It is a perpetual war machine. Why should companies receive money but not people in need? Does it all really come down to “people don’t make goods and services”? “Never mind them because they don’t make me rich”? Which is all to say: is it an attitude that dehumanizes people and objectifies them as cogs in the corporate machine and when said cogs can’t work anymore we throw them out?

[aw9725]

Smc, Enoch, Randolph and others… You really aren’t going to be able to “win” this one. I have been monitoring this thread (and similar ones) for quite a while now. Tracy has the game down pat and no matter how well thought out, logical or well presented your arguments are you will never get her to admit you are right. Any more than Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, or Rush Limbaugh would.

This “discussion” is not political discourse--there is no debate of “ideas.” And no attempt at resolution or understanding. There is only name calling, “I didn’t say that,” and recitation of right wing partisan “talking points” and dubious facts that any 12 year old could learn from listening to Rush Limbaugh. False choices are often presented as well: “where would you rather live than the US?” is not really a valid question. It completely omits the fact that the person objecting to capitalist greed, lack of universal health care, racism, homophobia, etc. may want to STAY in the US--indeed they have a RIGHT to live in the US as a citizen--only to want to make things better.

I was raised in a conservative Republican home and read Ayn Rand at a very early age. My degrees include an MBA and a minor in Economics so please, spare me your attempts at “educating” me. As I have gotten older and seen the failures of our socioeconomic system I have developed a much more inclusive view of the world that includes a greater role of government. At the same time I am a champion of individual rights and freedom. As you might expect, I have very complex views on many subjects and enjoy a friendly discussion of genuine “ideas” with people I know and respect.

Unfortunately, these threads are not the place for that. I for one am tired of logging on to TLB only to see “Ronald Reagan,” or “Liberal Free for All…” or whatever at the top of the page when it should say something like “Kelly Shore and Rakel Rodriguez Together” or “Support for Victims of Violence” or even “RU Gay 4 Liking Shemales.” Who knows, I could be totally wrong about all of this. I for the most part, have totally ignored these postings before and will continue to do so once again.

[smc]

Smc, Enoch, Randolph and others? You really aren?t going to be able to ?win? this one. I have been monitoring this thread (and similar ones) for quite a while now. Tracy has the game down pat and no matter how well thought out, logical or well presented your arguments are you will never get her to admit you are right. Any more than Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, or Rush Limbaugh would.

This ?discussion? is not political discourse--there is no debate of ?ideas.? And no attempt at resolution or understanding. There is only name calling, ?I didn?t say that,? and recitation of right wing partisan ?talking points? and dubious facts that any 12 year old could learn from listening to Rush Limbaugh. False choices are often presented as well: ?where would you rather live than the US?? is not really a valid question. It completely omits the fact that the person objecting to capitalist greed, lack of universal health care, racism, homophobia, etc. may want to STAY in the US--indeed they have a RIGHT to live in the US as a citizen--only to want to make things better.

I was raised in a conservative Republican home and read Ayn Rand at a very early age. My degrees include an MBA and a minor in Economics so please, spare me your attempts at ?educating? me. As I have gotten older and seen the failures of our socioeconomic system I have developed a much more inclusive view of the world that includes a greater role of government. At the same time I am a champion of individual rights and freedom. As you might expect, I have very complex views on many subjects and enjoy a friendly discussion of genuine ?ideas? with people I know and respect.

Unfortunately, these threads are not the place for that. I for one am tired of logging on to TLB only to see ?Ronald Reagan,? or ?Liberal Free for All?? or whatever at the top of the page when it should say something like ?Kelly Shore and Rakel Rodriguez Together? or ?Support for Victims of Violence? or even ?RU Gay 4 Liking Shemales.? Who knows, I could be totally wrong about all of this. I for the most part, have totally ignored these postings before and will continue to do so once again.

You are absolutely correct. The ONLY value of "engaging" Tracy (and I realize that using the word "engaging" is an insult to the real engagement that goes on in genuine discourse) is the value that accrues to those who read but do not post, and who may -- even if only a bit -- figure out that drivel such as that spewed in these threads again and again warrants at least a critical eye, not the fealty to ignorance that tends to accompany the statement of such drivel.

[randolph]

OK all you passionate political posters, let's see who can identify the author of the following passage.

The word ?We? is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.
What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?
But I am done with this creed of corruption.
I am done with the monster ?We?, the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This god is one word: ?I?

[ila]

OK all you passionate political posters, let's see who can identify the author of the following passage.

It's from Ayn Rand.

Big deal. :p

[Enoch Root]

You are absolutely correct. The ONLY value of "engaging" Tracy (and I realize that using the word "engaging" is an insult to the real engagement that goes on in genuine discourse) is the value that accrues to those who read but do not post, and who may -- even if only a bit -- figure out that drivel such as that spewed in these threads again and again warrants at least a critical eye, not the fealty to ignorance that tends to accompany the statement of such drivel.

Agreed.

aw9725: you are completely correct. There is no real substantive discussion going on here. There is no exciting exchange of ideas. But this is because Tracy brings no substance whatever to this thread or other threads, no substance whatever to the forum as a whole. You, smc, randolph and myself try our best to bring real ideas. Tracy only brings half-baked tirades about...everything. And when two--or however many people are involved in a discussion--people in a discussion do not both bring real ideas the discussion breaks down.

But while this is by no means a real discussion as may be had by, say, biological evolutionists about the placement of a fossil in the evolutionary tree, it is precisely due to the vapid nature of Tracy's post that some of us counter her. I, for one, do not do this for her sake. I do it for the sake of the readers and members of this forum. To paraphrase Bill Maher: in America bullshit spreads real fast and you have to get in there quick to get rid of it before it reaches critical mass.

smc: Fealty to ignorance. Love that phrase. I'm stealing it for my short stories...

[Enoch Root]

OK all you passionate political posters, let's see who can identify the author of the following passage.

A selfish bitch who is more interested in self-glorification than empowering and educating people?

...That's what Ayn Rand means in Ta?no, right?...

[randolph]

It's from Ayn Rand.

Big deal. :p

What I was going to point out is that Ayn Rand is worshiped by conservatives. Her concept of the ego centered individual indulging in a "free market" is the center piece of Reagan and subsequent Republican Presidents. It was further fostered by Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan.
The US was founded on "We the people". The founders understood the principle of cooperation for mutual benefit, WE will do it. The turmoil building in this country is the direct result of conservatives diminishing the public for personal benefit.

[The Conquistador]

OK all you passionate political posters, let's see who can identify the author of the following passage.

Ayn Rand-The biggest philosophy poser of all time.

[TracyCoxx]

To deal with stupid issues first: you are diverting attention from the issue at hand by brushing me off because I don?t live in a fair country. Stating that accomplishes nothing, Tracy. But I?ll answer anyway and the answer is in two parts. 1) I would prefer to live in my homeland of Puerto Rico, but I would like this country to belong to its people. For it to belong to me and my compatriots it is necessary that the American Empire leave us alone.I agree with you on that, and I do find it hypocritical that the US treats your country the way it was treated over 200 years ago by England. I do not have any firsthand knowledge about what things are like there, but I do know that Puerto Ricans are able to leave their country, but you want to stay in the hope that Puerto Rico will one day belong to it's people. Fine. More power to the people of Puerto Rico. Seriously. But who knows when or if this will ever happen. Knowing this, things are at least good enough for you to want to stay none the less.

To expand further on the quote provided: the attitude expressed by the quote is easily summarized as ?fuck the poor.? ?It?s not for everyone. It?s poor people?s fault they are poor. They like being poor. What other explanation is there for it?? Do you think people should just accept their exploitation?
As I said in the Reagan thread, I think your views of life in America are tainted by your experiences in Puerto Rico. If not, are you saying things here are like they are there? The other explanation you asked for is there are obviously people in America who are all for socialism. I am not denying that, and my quote is my recognition that I'm not going to change their minds. There are several other countries they can go to where they will be as happy as frogs in a swamp. But here they are a square peg in a round hole. This is a capitalist country, and hopefully it will remain a capitalist country despite BO's promise to fundamentally change America. It not my recommendation that the poor find another country. It is my recommendation that people in a capitalist country who can't stand capitalism find another country. My link to the article about how to do that when you have no money was in response to an earlier comment you made that it is often cost prohibitive.

Capitalism isn?t for everyone but it still depends on a pool of easily exploited people. Capitalism is only for the ruling class. Everyone else is treated like an object, like a tool, like an inferior.
Let's stop speaking in generalities. Who in America is being exploited so we can at least talk about specific cases.

You are telling people to be quiet because, after all, ?in America, [capitalism is] what we have.? You shrug your shoulders and you shrug off any responsibility for the well-being of your compatriots.Well it is in fact a capitalist country. If other countries want socialism fine. Let them have at it. But there is a place on Earth were we're capitalists - for all those who want to live in a capitalist country, there is a choice - the USA. There is no iron curtain. We don't keep people here against their will to live as capitalists.

Let's say there's a nudist colony of people living there and doing their thing. Then someone is raised in the colony, grows up and decides being a nudist isn't for her. She becomes a nun and has all her preconceptions about the evil nudists, spouting off how things should be in her eyes and how she feels like a 2nd class citizen in nudist land. Should the nudist colony change to accommodate the nun? No. She should admit that being a nudist isn't her thing and hey, there's a whole world of fully clothed bible thumpers out there. Why not go there?

And Tracy, stop it with these ridiculous tricks. I never said you were for corporate welfare. I asked you if you were for corporate welfare.No.

The military industrial complex is a beast fed by corporate welfare. It is a perpetual war machine. Why should companies receive money but not people in need?Stop with these ridiculous tricks. I never said that people in need should not receive any aid. In fact, I said:
but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

There are other avenues for people in need to get help. It doesn't always have to come from the government. In 2006, Americans have donated $295 billion to charities. The amount donated has been rising about 150% faster than the economy for more than 50 years. Americans have been much more generous than other countries to charities. Again, companies receive money for goods and services. If they received money as a charity, and not as a loan, then that would be welfare. Do you see the difference?

Does it all really come down to ?people don?t make goods and services??lol no. Of course people make goods and services, and when they do they receive a salary. And as for the predictable response of why their salaries are so much lower than the CEOs? I explained it in the Reagan thread.

[TracyCoxx]

It's from Ayn Rand.I like Ayn Rand. A rare atheist conservative like me.

[aw9725]

I like Ayn Rand. A rare atheist conservative like me.

Tracy and I agree on something! The two books I read were Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Both when I was in my teens. :respect:

[Tread]

There are other avenues for people in need to get help. It doesn't always have to come from the government. In 2006, Americans have donated $295 billion to charities. The amount donated has been rising about 150% faster than the economy for more than 50 years. Americans have been much more generous than other countries to charities.

Like what other countries? Bangladesh, Burma, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, Nicaragua or others who have real issues to survive? With that you try to put the USA in a perspective that is not true.
I said it before http://forum.transladyboy.com/showthread.php?p=164065#post164103
Only the total amount of money can look good. And this is only because you have a high population with a high GDP/GDI. With these facts you always look not so good, as country or per citizen.
But you have statistics where you are at top and mostly #1, like military expenses (total nearly 50% of the world military expenses and second per GDP), most prisoners (total and incarceration), crime rates that can compared to the worst countries in the world, the highest health costs of all, and not to talk about your eco-balance.

[randolph]

Tracy and I agree on something! The two books I read were Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Both when I was in my teens. :respect:

I read her book "Anthem" written in 1937. Her writing reflected the times. Many people thought communism was the wave of the future, she strongly disagreed. She grew up in Russia during the revolution and the takeover by the Bolsheviks. She saw the brutality, the oppression and the lack of freedom of a collectivist society. It strongly colored her future writing.
In my opinion, her writing is somewhat adolescent and rather naive. She doesn't understand the essence of humanity which is cooperative effort. She is basically sociopathic in her out look. I guess that's why she is popular with conservatives.

[aw9725]

I am well aware of how Rand is received by liberals in academia. Whatever your interpretation of Rand, at least as a teenager, I was intrigued and influenced by the potential of the “individual” to make a difference in society. I have always been strongly independent and reading about characters such as John Galt or Hank Rearden appealed to me. As did the strong women in their lives. This strength of character is neither “right” nor “left” politically. My own beliefs about Rand may have indeed changed over the years. After all, in another thread on here, someone else calls me a “liberal professor”! :lol:

Anyway, I’m not sure that “Atlas Shrugged” would have the same impact on me today as it did when I was 17. Randolph makes some good points about what is "wrong" with much of her writing and philosophy. You are free to ridicule Rand all you want in this thread. However I would ask that you not attack me personally--unless you would like to meet in “real life” to discuss it.

After March 5 I have decided that I will no longer be participating on TLB. I have enjoyed getting to know some of you and hope that you will continue to keep in touch via email.

Andy :cool:

[randolph]

Andy You are free to ridicule Rand all you want in this thread. However I would ask that you not attack me personally--unless you would like to meet in ?real life? to discuss it.

I am not aware of personally attacking you at any time in any post. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the above quote. I sincerely hope you change your mind, your posts are well thought out and add to the forum.

[TracyCoxx]

Just like the democrats in congress, the Wisconsin democrats have to use dirty underhanded, even illegal methods to get their agenda passed. Albeit they've gone much further than the ones in congress and actually have warrants out for their arrest!

It amazes me how many times democratic organizations and politicians try to skirt procedures and laws to push their agenda. Ranging from back room, midnight sessions to pass major legislation to staging a walkout to stop a vote. There was also a walkout in Texas' congress several years ago, guess which side... the democrats. And then there's groups like ACORN whose modus operandi includes election fraud and aid for whore houses, or the ACLU protecting the rights of organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Democratic congressmen openly try and set the stage to allow illegal aliens to vote. The democratic unions and politicians in Wisconsin want to push their agenda to the point of putting their state in debt and forcing layoffs. Just do your job, represent your people and show up and vote.

[randolph]

Just like the democrats in congress, the Wisconsin democrats have to use dirty underhanded, even illegal methods to get their agenda passed. Albeit they've gone much further than the ones in congress and actually have warrants out for their arrest!

It amazes me how many times democratic organizations and politicians try to skirt procedures and laws to push their agenda. Ranging from back room, midnight sessions to pass major legislation to staging a walkout to stop a vote. There was also a walkout in Texas' congress several years ago, guess which side... the democrats. And then there's groups like ACORN whose modus operandi includes election fraud and aid for whore houses, or the ACLU protecting the rights of organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Democratic congressmen openly try and set the stage to allow illegal aliens to vote. The democratic unions and politicians in Wisconsin want to push their agenda to the point of putting their state in debt and forcing layoffs. Just do your job, represent your people and show up and vote.

Surly Tracy you can come up with more bad things Democrats are fond of doing and yes the ACLU is another awful organization. Unions of course harbor criminals and other bad types. And LIBERALS, gasp, oh horrors! How can upright honest decent conservative Republicans stand to live in the same country with all this riff raff. It's truly disgusting. Oh, by the way, Tracy did you know that there are actually poor conservatives that have criminal records and quite a few are in JAIL. OMG how can that happen? Surely it is the result of a liberal conspiracy to secretly do away with conservatives. Something has to be done to protect conservatives from this relentless thrust by evil LIBERALS to take over the country. :lol::lol::lol:

[smc]

Just like the democrats in congress, the Wisconsin democrats have to use dirty underhanded, even illegal methods to get their agenda passed. Albeit they've gone much further than the ones in congress and actually have warrants out for their arrest!

It amazes me how many times democratic organizations and politicians try to skirt procedures and laws to push their agenda. Ranging from back room, midnight sessions to pass major legislation to staging a walkout to stop a vote. There was also a walkout in Texas' congress several years ago, guess which side... the democrats. And then there's groups like ACORN whose modus operandi includes election fraud and aid for whore houses, or the ACLU protecting the rights of organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Democratic congressmen openly try and set the stage to allow illegal aliens to vote. The democratic unions and politicians in Wisconsin want to push their agenda to the point of putting their state in debt and forcing layoffs. Just do your job, represent your people and show up and vote.

Tracy Coxx is a master of telling you only parts of a story, or simply repeating drivel that has been refuted by reputable investigations and news organization (that is, pretty much anyone other than Fox "News" and WorldNetDaily.

The statements about ACORN are right-wing drivel. Whatever one thinks of ACORN, concerted election fraud and aid for whorehouses is nothing but far-right talking points, baseless drivel. Tracy loves to repeat such crap, knowing how easy it is to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and get away with spewing bullshit.

Tracy wants you to think that only Democrats employ the walkout strategy, because if Tracy told the truth Tracy would have to reveal that this is a tactic used by both sides. History, though, gets in the way when you insist -- as does Tracy -- on having your own "facts" (that is, not real facts, but the things you want people to believe). But facts are a tenacious thing; they tend to stick around:


California Assembly, 1994: When the Assembly was evenly split, 40-40, between Democrats and Republicans, the Republican members refused to show up for floor sessions in an effort to prevent Democrats from electing Willie Brown as speaker with less than a majority vote. The Republicans stayed out for several days but finally relented in January 1995.

Nevada Senate, 1999: In a complicated conflict over privatization of workers' compensation, the entire Republican majority left the chamber in the middle of a night session in anger over a speech by a Democrat. The minority Democrats who remained in the chamber issued a call of the house. The sergeant-at-arms was able to round up enough Republicans to make a quorum, and the Democrats proceeded to pass two bills. Later that day, the Republicans returned and, after a motion to reconsider by two of the Republicans who had been compelled to attend, overturned the Senate's actions on those bills.


Regardless of what one thinks about these tactics, or about either of the parties, the truth ought to be told. There are, by the way, examples going all the way back to Lincoln and the Illinois legislature.

Tracy doesn't mention how yesterday, in the Ohio legislature, a bill seeking to take away collective-bargaining rights from public employees was pushed through by the Republican majority in an underhanded manner. Some Republicans didn't want to go along with their leadership, so they were removed from committees on which they had votes and where they might have opened a debate and stopped the bill from proceeding so quickly and replaced by any other Republican who would vote the way the leadership wanted. This happened in two committees and the votes then took place in the course of an hour. This enabled the legislation to get to the floor, where it passed by one vote. Several historians of parliamentary procedure have already noted that this is the most underhanded maneuver they've seen in a state legislature in decades. These Republicans who disagee with their leadership were denied the right to read the legislation and debate it. As one Republican Ohio legislator noted, his party did the same thing the national Republicans accused the Democrats of doing with the healthcare bill in Congress!

If you want to understand Tracy's behavior, look up "GIFT" -- the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. I apologize in advance for the use of "fuckwad" by those who first articulated this theory, but it does explain what we see again and again in this and the other drivel-filled threads Tracy starts on this site.

[randolph]

Tracy Coxx is a master of telling you only part of a story. Tracy doesn't mention how yesterday, in the Ohio legislature, a bill seeking to take away collective-bargaining rights from public employees was pushed through by the Republican majority in an underhanded manner. Some Republicans didn't want to go along with their leadership, so they were removed from committees on which they had votes and where they might have opened a debate and stopped the bill from proceeding so quickly and replaced by any other Republican who would vote the way the leadership wanted. This happened in two committees and the votes then took place in the course of an hour. This enabled the legislation to get to the floor, where it passed by one vote. Several historians of parliamentary procedure have already noted that this is the most underhanded maneuver they've seen in a state legislature in decades. These Republicans who disagee with their leadership were denied the right to read the legislation and debate it. As one Republican Ohio legislator noted, his party did the same thing the national Republicans accused the Democrats of doing with the healthcare bill in Congress!

The conservatives are determined, by hook or crook, to seversly weaken the middle class. Their financial masters (Koch bothers) pour money into elections to get their lackeys elected. Unionized workers are among the few that have seen their wages stay ahead of inflation. Most workers have not seen gains in wages (adjusted for inflation) for many years.
Granted, there is a severe problem with excessively generous retirement benefits. Our local county is spiraling deeper and deeper into debt as a result of retirement benefits granted to firemen and police officers. Who is at fault in this? It seem to me, its the fault of the dumbass officials that failed to look into the future costs of the plans they approved. :frown:

[smc]

Granted, there is a severe problem with excessively generous retirement benefits. Our local county is spiraling deeper and deeper into debt as a result of retirement benefits granted to firemen and police officers. Who is at fault in this? It seem to me, its the fault of the dumbass officials that failed to look into the future costs of the plans they approved. :frown:

I'm saddened to see you fall into this trap of "blaming" -- whether implicitly or explicitly -- working people for the current situation. Police, firemen, teachers, and other public workers are simply demanding what is theirs already. A pension is not a gift; it is part of the wage/benefit package that was negotiated contractually. And it is the very, very, very rare pension plan indeed that does not include a significant contribution from the worker herself or himself. So, all these public employees are demanding is to be paid the money that is THEIRS!

Why are counties, cities, and states so strapped? Not because the amount os the pensions are out of line. It is because the money was LOST. And who lost it? The very Wall Street bankers who, enabled by the politicians they own, used this money in their casino -- a casino that nearly brought down this country economically. They ran, and continue to run, a massive financial fraud and not a single one is under indictment or behind bars.

Put the blame where it belongs. Once we do that, we can begin the process of recovering the money stolen from working people by these criminals.

[randolph]

I'm saddened to see you fall into this trap of "blaming" -- whether implicitly or explicitly -- working people for the current situation. Police, firemen, teachers, and other public workers are simply demanding what is theirs already. A pension is not a gift; it is part of the wage/benefit package that was negotiated contractually. And it is the very, very, very rare pension plan indeed that does not include a significant contribution from the worker herself or himself. So, all these public employees are demanding is to be paid the money that is THEIRS!



Why are counties, cities, and states so strapped? Not because the amount os the pensions are out of line. It is because the money was LOST. And who lost it? The very Wall Street bankers who, enabled by the politicians they own, used this money in their casino -- a casino that nearly brought down this country economically. They ran, and continue to run, a massive financial fraud and not a single one is under indictment or behind bars.

Put the blame where it belongs. Once we do that, we can begin the process of recovering the money stolen from working people by these criminals.


Certainly, workers earn and deserve a just retirement. However, the evidence suggests that at the time the retirement plan was negotiated, the ultimate costs were not projected. The plans were extremely generous, far beyond what would be considered reasonable.
The question is it justified to give some one a retirement higher than his final salary? Is it justified to play games with work time to raise the retirement even more? In the case of Riverside County, there is no evidence the money was "lost" it seems to be a case of bad fiscal planning and management.

[smc]

Certainly, workers earn and deserve a just retirement. However, the evidence suggests that at the time the retirement plan was negotiated, the ultimate costs were not projected. The plans were extremely generous, far beyond what would be considered reasonable.
The question is it justified to give some one a retirement higher than his final salary? Is it justified to play games with work time to raise the retirement even more? In the case of Riverside County, there is no evidence the money was "lost" it seems to be a case of bad fiscal planning and management.

I'm even more saddened, now. You should review the meaning of the word you use, "just." Whether the plans were "far beyond ... reasonable" is at best a secondary point, and one that is worthy of consideration for future pension agreements. The primary point is one of ownership, as in ownership of the money that is being withheld. It does not belong to Riverside County; it belongs to the workers. And so, I ask, is it "just" to keep it from them? And if it simply does not exist to give to them, is it "just" to blame them for wanting what is rightfully theirs?

[randolph]

SMC And so, I ask, is it "just" to keep it from them? And if it simply does not exist to give to them, is it "just" to blame them for wanting what is rightfully theirs?

The employees have a right to whatever was negotiated with the County. I am not blaming the employees for the lack of funds necessary to pay their retirements. Riverside County finances depend to a large extent on development fees and taxes. Development has crashed in this area resulting in severe economic distress for the County. As with other government agencies they spend more they can bring in. I doubt any agency keeps its retirement program fully funded at all times regardless of the current economy. Consequently, the County is faced with a future shortfall in its retirement system.
Is it fair that the taxpayers will ultimately be required to fork up the money to pay for these very generous retirements approved by County administraters? Needless to say Riverside County voters are thoroughly pissed off.

[smc]

SMC

The employees have a right to whatever was negotiated with the County. I am not blaming the employees for the lack of funds necessary to pay their retirements. Riverside County finances depend to a large extent on development fees and taxes. Development has crashed in this area resulting in severe economic distress for the County. As with other government agencies they spend more they can bring in. I doubt any agency keeps its retirement program fully funded at all times regardless of the current economy. Consequently, the County is faced with a future shortfall in its retirement system.
Is it fair that the taxpayers will ultimately be required to fork up the money to pay for these very generous retirements approved by County administraters? Needless to say Riverside County voters are thoroughly pissed off.

No, it's not fair that taxpayers -- working people themselves -- should bear the brunt of this. As I wrote earlier, the answer, as far-fetched as it may seem, lies in addressing the criminal behavior of those who are truly responsible for the problem. There is MORE THAN ENOUGH money to pay these pensions, pay for universal healthcare, free college tuition for every American, daycare, job training, ... you name it. The problem is not how much money there is, but who has stolen it and continues to hoard it, and who enables this on the criminals' behalf (Democrats and Republicans alike).

The first step is to acknowledge the truth. I'm still waiting for that from you, Randolph. Based on what you've written many times, I'm finding it difficult to understand why it's taking so long. I recognize that you are probably one of those Riverside County taxpayers. But at the same time that you angrily accept your fate -- to have to pay for these pensions -- is it not possible to acknowledge that in doing so you are being stolen from by the very people who should be giving back the money for those pensions?

[randolph]

SMC The first step is to acknowledge the truth. I'm still waiting for that from you, Randolph. Based on what you've written many times, I'm finding it difficult to understand why it's taking so long. I recognize that you are probably one of those Riverside County taxpayers. But at the same time that you angrily accept your fate -- to have to pay for these pensions -- is it not possible to acknowledge that in doing so you are being stolen from by the very people who should be giving back the money for those pensions?

In various posts, I have complained bitterly about the rape of the working class by the Wall Street banks and the complicity of our Federal government. Why aren't these criminals in jail? The laws are configured to punish the little guys while hoards of lawyers are able to get the rich off when and if they are charged with crimes. The horrendous loss of 401K savings by working people should be addressed by a heavy tax on the obscene profits accumulated by the rich investors. These funds would then be used to restore at least some of the 401K losses.

[franalexes]

SMC

In various posts, I have complained bitterly about the rape of the working class by the Wall Street banks and the complicity of our Federal government. Why aren't these criminals in jail? The laws are configured to punish the little guys while hoards of lawyers are able to get the rich off when and if they are charged with crimes. The horrendous loss of 401K savings by working people should be addressed by a heavy tax on the obscene profits accumulated by the rich investors. These funds would then be used to restore at least some of the 401K losses.

You must have a democrat financial advisor. Why didn't you invest in the same thing the rich guys did? My 401K never went below its inital start and is worth today what it was before the big crash. Now it did lose. It was worth more when the market was at 14,000 , but that was un-sustainable. Today the market is 12,000? and my value is the same now, maybe a little more, than it was at 12,000 before. Stock market values only count on the day you cash out. Anything else is just paper.

[smc]

SMC

In various posts, I have complained bitterly about the rape of the working class by the Wall Street banks and the complicity of our Federal government. Why aren't these criminals in jail? The laws are configured to punish the little guys while hoards of lawyers are able to get the rich off when and if they are charged with crimes. The horrendous loss of 401K savings by working people should be addressed by a heavy tax on the obscene profits accumulated by the rich investors. These funds would then be used to restore at least some of the 401K losses.

That's right, and that's why I did not expect you to join the chorus of those who seek to divert attention away from the real culprits.

[smc]

You must have a democrat financial advisor. Why didn't you invest in the same thing the rich guys did? My 401K never went below its inital start and is worth today what it was before the big crash. Now it did lose. It was worth more when the market was at 14,000 , but that was un-sustainable. Today the market is 12,000? and my value is the same now, maybe a little more, than it was at 12,000 before. Stock market values only count on the day you cash out. Anything else is just paper.

Note to all: "democrat" as used above in the quote has nothing to do with this discussion, and Fran knows it.

[TracyCoxx]

Surly Tracy you can come up with more bad things Democrats are fond of doing
Yeah, but I had to get to work...

and yes the ACLU is another awful organization. Unions of course harbor criminals and other bad types. And LIBERALS, gasp, oh horrors! How can upright honest decent conservative Republicans stand to live in the same country with all this riff raff. It's truly disgusting.absolutely!

Oh, by the way, Tracy did you know that there are actually poor conservatives that have criminal records and quite a few are in JAIL. OMG how can that happen?
Yes, of course there are conservatives in jail, but they aren't politicians are they? Well maybe a couple are, but I'm talking about how politicians in office and political organizations operate, not random citizens who find themselves in jail.

Something has to be done to protect conservatives from this relentless thrust by evil LIBERALS to take over the country.Exactly!

[smc]

Yeah, but I had to get to work...

absolutely!


Yes, of course there are conservatives in jail, but they aren't politicians are they? Well maybe a couple are, but I'm talking about how politicians in office and political organizations operate, not random citizens who find themselves in jail.

Exactly!

Wow, it's even easier simply to agree with sarcastic remarks that the OP doesn't really believe than to regurgitate the asinine and factually incorrect "talking points" of your typical posts, isn't it, Tracy?

Randolph should think twice before becoming an enabler. :lol:

[randolph]

SMC Randolph should think twice before becoming an enabler.

Hey, the only enabling I would like to do would be enabling a cute shemale to cum all over my tonsils.
Gulp, gag, cough, swallow, oh so yummy! :rolleyes:

[Buddy]

The reason why Obamacare was such a Democatic victory is that over the years, democrats and republicans are going to share leadership time, hippies will buy cadillacs and rednecks will grow long hair, and the Supreme Court will sway from liberal to conservative. But Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, these have roots that are here to stay.
With the decline of the 30 year job, and the 30 year mortgage, the middle class is losing solid ground. There was a survey done that found that people who make over 75 grand a year are HAPPY, and people who make less than 75 grand a year are UNHAPPY. No wonder the large percentage of people hate all government. Something's got to give, whether it be legalized pot, or war with Mexico. Cheap labor is the new OIL.

[Buddy]

Another used car salesman in the spotlight, this guy forgot to spray his bald spot after he shined his shoes. Make sure the camera catches his front, because his haircut has a hole in it. Look out for him in 2012.

[randolph]

Buddy Something's got to give, whether it be legalized pot, or war with Mexico. Cheap labor is the new OIL

Hey legalized pot! Perhaps if the politicians had a little pot, they wouldn't be so interested in going to war. Oh wait! If we took over Mexico, the pot would cheaper and the immigrant problem would go away. But first, we should take over Canada, they have more oil and good healthcare. :lol:

[Buddy]

Buddy

Hey legalized pot! Perhaps if the politicians had a little pot, they wouldn't be so interested in going to war. Oh wait! If we took over Mexico, the pot would cheaper and the immigrant problem would go away. But first, we should take over Canada, they have more oil and good healthcare. :lol:

I considered that, but the Republicans would object to war with Canada, cause they speak American there.

[randolph]

I considered that, but the Republicans would object to war with Canada, cause they speak American there.

Gasp, do you really think Canadians speak American?
I think Ila will have something to say about that.

[ila]

Buddy

Hey legalized pot! Perhaps if the politicians had a little pot, they wouldn't be so interested in going to war. Oh wait! If we took over Mexico, the pot would cheaper and the immigrant problem would go away. But first, we should take over Canada, they have more oil and good healthcare. :lol:

Your country has tried it several times before and always lost. You might as well give up any future attempts. The only reason Canada hasn't taken over the US is because we don't need the trillions in debt that your country is amassing.

I considered that, but the Republicans would object to war with Canada, cause they speak American there.

Gasp, do you really think Canadians speak American?
I think Ila will have something to say about that.

You are most definitely right, randolph. We speak correct English here and not American.

[The Conquistador]

You are most definitely right, randolph. We speak correct English here and not American.

Polar bears can speak English? :eek: ;)

[ila]

Polar bears can speak English? :eek: ;)

You bet. I've heard that some penguins are good at it too. ;):lol:

[franalexes]

You bet. I've heard that some penguins are good at it too. ;):lol:

At least penguins have the good taste to wear tuxedoes; not some frumpy old fur coat.
I suppose polar bears also think they have the cutest looking T-girls?
( calling 'Sully for a second opinion):frown:

[randolph]

Maybe Ila has something going up there that we don't know about. ;)

[franalexes]

Randolph should think twice before becoming an enabler. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Close; Randolph is a provocateur~.

[randolph]

Randolph should think twice before becoming an enabler. :lol:

Close; Randolph is a provocateur~.[/quote]

I would love to meet a shemale that says "aboot". :lol:

[franalexes]

[I would love to meet a shemale that says "aboot". :lol:[/QUOTE]

Can't help you there. Ya looking for a "bluenoser".

[randolph]

[I would love to meet a shemale that says "aboot". :lol:

Can't help you there. Ya looking for a "bluenoser".[/quote]

I think it's too cold up there. I am going to head South and look for a "hot tamale" that says "si". :lol:

[randolph]

Ahhh, Tea Party America. :rolleyes:

[randolph]

Tax cuts for the rich. :frown:

[transjen]

Tax cuts for the rich. :frown:

Now come on Randolph just listen to the GOP they claim it's vital for the rich to get all the cuts as they create the jobs

So why is unemployment at an all time high?
There tried answer is blame the Dems and to fix everything is simple just keep cutting taxes for the rich
Oh by the way the reason the goverment is bankrupt is because of intitlements not W's two wars and the massive joblosses durning W's eight years
Oh don't forget that's it the UNIONS fault that a lot of states are now in the red
So we now have the cry cut taxes for the rich end entitlements and destroy all unions and everything will be great
in others words Reagenonic round 3 so all the non rich just bend over while the GOP does it agian and we get :coupling:
:frown: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Oh by the way the reason the goverment is bankrupt is because of intitlements not W's two wars and the massive joblosses durning W's eight years
Oh don't forget that's it the UNIONS fault that a lot of states are now in the red
So we now have the cry cut taxes for the rich end entitlements and destroy all unions and everything will be great
Listen to this girl Randolf, she's pretty smart. Just a couple of things though Jen, you can probably call Gulf War II Bush's war, even though both houses voted for it, and it had unanimous support in the UN, but you're calling the Afghanistan war Bush's war? Didn't Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have something to do with that? And I would hardly characterize an average 5% unemployment rate during Bush's terms as massive joblosses. It's the best unemployment rate since the late 60s.

[smc]

Now come on Randolph just listen to the GOP they claim it's vital for the rich to get all the cuts as they create the jobs

So why is unemployment at an all time high?
There tried answer is blame the Dems and to fix everything is simple just keep cutting taxes for the rich
Oh by the way the reason the goverment is bankrupt is because of intitlements not W's two wars and the massive joblosses durning W's eight years
Oh don't forget that's it the UNIONS fault that a lot of states are now in the red
So we now have the cry cut taxes for the rich end entitlements and destroy all unions and everything will be great
in others words Reagenonic round 3 so all the non rich just bend over while the GOP does it agian and we get :coupling:
:frown: Jerseygirl Jen

Listen to this girl Randolf, she's pretty smart. Just a couple of things though Jen, you can probably call Gulf War II Bush's war, even though both houses voted for it, and it had unanimous support in the UN, but you're calling the Afghanistan war Bush's war? Didn't Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have something to do with that? And I would hardly characterize an average 5% unemployment rate during Bush's terms as massive joblosses. It's the best unemployment rate since the late 60s.

Jen is being sarcastic. But you are right about one thing, Tracy: "She's pretty smart." In fact, smart enough to make you look the exact opposite.

[randolph]

OK Here is a proposal.
Fran, Jen, Tracy, SMC and Randolph get together at a Southie bar in Boston for libations and political discussion.
Fran would take bets on who would get thrown out of the bar first. :lol:

[smc]

OK Here is a proposal.
Fran, Jen, Tracy, SMC and Randolph get together at a Southie bar in Boston for libations and political discussion.
Fran would take bets on who would get thrown out of the bar first. :lol:

Is the point to be thrown out of the bar? Where's the fun in that?

[randolph]

Is the point to be thrown out of the bar? Where's the fun in that?

Oh well, my attempts at a little humor have failed again. :confused:

[smc]

Oh well, my attempts at a little humor have failed again. :confused:

My god, did you think I was being serious? I was asking "tongue-in-cheek."

In any case, were the point to be thrown out of the bar first, I assure you that I know the buttons to push in Southie that would win me the "honors." However, I would prefer to lose so I could stay in the bar and get shitfaced.

[randolph]

My god, did you think I was being serious? I was asking "tongue-in-cheek."

In any case, were the point to be thrown out of the bar first, I assure you that I know the buttons to push in Southie that would win me the "honors." However, I would prefer to lose so I could stay in the bar and get shitfaced.

Yep, that's where the humor is, discussing politics while shitfaced.
I've tried that a few times, we end up agreeing on having another drink. :lol:

[TracyCoxx]

If I find myself at a table in a bar with drinks and Fran, political debate is the last thing I'm thinking about.

[randolph]

The California economy is NOT improving in spite of optimistic prognostications from Washington and New York. Employment is 250,000 LOWER than it was ten years ago. Food Stamp demand is increasing in the area where I liv (Riverside County) and is higher than any where else in the US.
This is in spite of billions of tax money poured into banks and financial institution, ostensibly to "stimulate" the economy. It appears most of the stimulus money has gone into the stock market, making millions of profits for investors but not doing much for the economy.
The other problem is the price of gasoline. California is a commuter economy. The economy is extremely sensitive to the price of gasoline. A major escalation in price will severely and prevent any economic recovery in California.

[no1000]

I know how you feel Randolph. I live in the pomona area and gas is ridiculous. I do know of 2 people that have lost their jobs because they cannot commute to work and make it a worthwhile. Gas costs more than what they are actually making. I filled up my tank with $67 the other day. :censored: I'm hoping it doesn't get as bad as it did in the summer of 2008.

Yes, too much money goes to the educate system (I'm preparing for a hate mail on this one), prison systems, unions and government workers. And brown wants to extend taxes in June!?!?! oh hell no!!! Californians.. please say NO to tax increases!!!

[TracyCoxx]

During the coming presidential campaign you will probably be asked: "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" You can bet it will not be Obama asking that question.

[randolph]

I know how you feel Randolph. I live in the pomona area and gas is ridiculous. I do know of 2 people that have lost their jobs because they cannot commute to work and make it a worthwhile. Gas costs more than what they are actually making. I filled up my tank with $67 the other day. :censored: I'm hoping it doesn't get as bad as it did in the summer of 2008.

Yes, too much money goes to the educate system (I'm preparing for a hate mail on this one), prison systems, unions and government workers. And brown wants to extend taxes in June!?!?! oh hell no!!! Californians.. please say NO to tax increases!!!

Well, I would have to agree with much of what you say. California is over regulated, overly bureaucratic and the legislature is corrupt. Infrastructure is disintegrating while urban renewal funds are spent on things the Board of Supervisors can brag about. Like fancy sports complexes and expensive community centers that have their names plastered on them. Aarggg!

[no1000]

Yeah, 'they' are building a football stadium in the diamond bar/walnut area and 'they' are also trying to build another sports stadium in LA. One of the people who was for the LA stadium said something along the lines, "traffic will be no problem, the LA freeways can handle about twice as many cars than what it has right now." I guess he/she has never driven down the 10 freeway at 6pm on a weekday. :censored:

Well, I would have to agree with much of what you say. California is over regulated, overly bureaucratic and the legislature is corrupt. Infrastructure is disintegrating while urban renewal funds are spent on things the Board of Supervisors can brag about. Like fancy sports complexes and expensive community centers that have their names plastered on them. Aarggg!

[randolph]

During the coming presidential campaign you will probably be asked: "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" You can bet it will not be Obama asking that question.

Hey, anybody working for the arms industry should be very happy with Obama. He is the biggest Presidential arms dealer in recent memory. The Wikileaks documents spell it out in Fortune magazine. Two hundred and fifty thousand workers here in the US are working full time making weapons for international trade. Of course, Israel get top of the line.

[transjen]

During the coming presidential campaign you will probably be asked: "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" You can bet it will not be Obama asking that question.

I can honestly say i'm doing better as for the last two years i got a pay raise along with an cost of living increase thanks to our union

While back in the W years it was pay freezes and a pay cut, we accepted the pay cut to aviod layoffs

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Hey, anybody working for the arms industry should be very happy with Obama. He is the biggest Presidential arms dealer in recent memory. The Wikileaks documents spell it out in Fortune magazine. Two hundred and fifty thousand workers here in the US are working full time making weapons for international trade. Of course, Israel get top of the line.

Always true to your talking points... Are YOU better off than you were 4 years ago?

[TracyCoxx]

I can honestly say i'm doing better as for the last two years i got a pay raise along with an cost of living increase thanks to our union

While back in the W years it was pay freezes and a pay cut, we accepted the pay cut to aviod layoffs

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

That's great. Looks like all your hard work paid off. Or was it just an automatic raise that comes with being part of a union? In other words did the dems pay for your vote with my taxes?

[randolph]

Always true to your talking points... Are YOU better off than you were 4 years ago?

Yep, sitting on my nest egg (stayed on the sidelines during the boom).

[TracyCoxx]

Yep, sitting on my nest egg (stayed on the sidelines during the boom).

Oh ok, I thought you were saying that ...
... the other problem is the price of gasoline. California is a commuter economy. The economy is extremely sensitive to the price of gasoline. A major escalation in price will severely and prevent any economic recovery in California.

[smc]

That's great. Looks like all your hard work paid off. Or was it just an automatic raise that comes with being part of a union? In other words did the dems pay for your vote with my taxes?

Hey, Jen, when you file your income taxes this year perhaps you can stipulate that you don't want any of what you pay to help fund any of the myriad benefits from the government that Tracy Coxx surely receives. Keep Tracy off the highways, for instance. Don't allow Tracy to fly in any airplanes that use our federal air traffic control system. Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Buddy]

Obama should declare MARTIAL: LAW in Detroit and have a new MANHATTAN PROJECT invent a car that lasts 40 years and runs on french fry grease. Made by the army. Costing 10 grand each for the safest, most economical greenest reliable smartest vehicle ever made. Waiting for the World to fall out of love with oil takes too long.

[randolph]

In the good old days we had strong active unions that supported the Democratic Congressmen. Their influence helped moderate big business support of the Republican Congressmen. Decisions by Congress were usually a compromise between the two. This strengthen and maintained the well being of the working middle class.
Foreign competition along with persistent effort by the Republicans and big business, has essentially eliminated the union movement, except for some public employees. Consequently, both parties and all congressmen are now beholden to big business. The working middle class and especially the poor, have no influence in Congress. This does not bode well for the Nation.
Just look at the billions of taxpayer money poured into the financial institutions to bail them out, supposedly to get the economy going again. Well, much of it has gone into the stock market enriching the very people who created the crash. The market will crash again, the taxpayers will be stuck again. But will there be a next time?
Isn't time the American public stood up and said enough is enough?

[The Conquistador]

Yep, that's where the humor is, discussing politics while shitfaced.
I've tried that a few times, we end up agreeing on having another drink. :lol:

What about discussing politics butt ass naked? Would that result in buttseks?

[transjen]

That's great. Looks like all your hard work paid off. Or was it just an automatic raise that comes with being part of a union? In other words did the dems pay for your vote with my taxes?

How does my pay raise increase your taxes? I'm not a state employee or goverment employee i'm a bank teller

And before you ask the bank i work for didn't not get part of the bail out
And fyi our raises are mostly based on merit and job preformance
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

What about discussing politics butt ass naked? Would that result in buttseks?

Now that could be fun as we let it all hang out

:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;179191lf War II Bush's war, even though both houses voted for it, and it had unanimous support in the UN, but you're calling the Afghanistan war Bush's war? Didn't Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have something to do with that? And I would hardly characterize an average 5% unemployment rate during Bush's terms as massive joblosses. It's the best unemployment rate since the late 60s.[/QUOTE]



You forgot to mention that W and his crew lied there A$$ES of to both houses
and your average 5% is another shellgame played on the public from the liar W you forget that he was always calling up the reserves to go fight so they left there jobs to go fight creating a ton of temp jobs taking people of the unemployment line and W as usual lied at the numbers and FOX news helped sell the shell game
In truth W lost more jobs then he created and more people fell in to poverty
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Now that could be fun as we let it all hang out

:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

Are there going to be some rules or shall we just have a drunken orgy? :drool:;)

[transjen]

Are there going to be some rules or shall we just have a drunken orgy? :drool:;)

Like under the boardwalk? on a hot summers night :innocent:


:cool: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Like under the boardwalk? on a hot summers night :innocent:


:cool: Jerseygirl Jen

We don't have a boardwalk here so I guess we will have to meet in New Jesey. Umm, who is going to provide the drinks? :innocent:

[TracyCoxx]

And fyi our raises are mostly based on merit and job preformanceOk ok. Congrats then. I was thinking it was a cost of living increase.

[TracyCoxx]

You forgot to mention that W and his crew lied there A$$ES of to both housesAnd you forgot to mention:

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

and your average 5% is another shellgame played on the public from the liar W you forget that he was always calling up the reserves to go fight so they left there jobs to go fight creating a ton of temp jobs taking people of the unemployment line and W as usual lied at the numbers and FOX news helped sell the shell game
In truth W lost more jobs then he created and more people fell in to povertylol... let's get this straight... This month unemployment dropped .1% to 8.9 meaning that 192,000 people found work. If we do the math, you're saying the 3.9% gain in unemployment since Bush is due to almost 7.5 million troops coming home? Holy crap, I never knew we had so many troops over there!

[smc]

And you forgot to mention: ...

The difference between the Clinton-era statements on Iraq and the ones from the Bush Administration are obvious. Tracy Coxx, though -- as is typical -- conveniently ignores this in Tracy Coxx's usual way. Instead of responding to the charge of Bush lies, Tracy posts things to divert attention away from what Jen raised.

Unfortunately for Tracy, as has been demonstrated time and again on this site, the truth has a nasty habit of not going away. Fortunately for Tracy, the anonymity of the Internet affords the opportunity to ignore the truth and just keep spewing bullshit without ever having to face (literally) anyone else in the discussion. So, unlike what might happen in a school setting, where this kind of crap would be put to rest pretty quickly, we have to give up bandwidth for more of Tracy's prevarication and not-so-clever diversions.

A LIE:

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

The above is the famous Judith Miller baloney that was debunked.

A LIE:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

The CIA had already told Bush this wasn't true, but he said it anyway.

A LIE:

"[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

While intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early 1990s, they never found any proof of an ongoing relationship. Language was "tweaked" so Bush and Tenet could present a lie.

A LIE: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including a report from the State Department's intelligence wing -- declared to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

Shall I go on? There are upwards of 200-plus lies that have been documented about Iraq by the Bush Administration.

[randolph]

Bush and his buddies could be considered consequentialists. That is, they believed, "the end justifies the means". It is OK to lie, distort, kill, cheat, whatever, in order to achieve the desired objective. In this case, it was the removal of Saddam and the achievement of economic control over Iraq.

[smc]

At the end of the day, the real question is:

Which side are you on?

In this thread, a lot of the posters seem to be on the side of the guy on the left, even though that side cares nothing about their interests.

Go figure ... :confused:

[Enoch Root]

The political spectrum in the US--and as a result the political spectrum in my country--is absurd. Both choices present you with corporatism/empire and there is nowhere to turn to. All progressive voices are silenced or ridiculed.

In my country the choices are a) remain in a subservient/slavish status to the US or b) transform ourselves into the 51st state of America. Neither of these satisfy me since both require playing party to imperialism.

[Enoch Root]

Bush and his buddies could be considered consequentialists. That is, they believed, "the end justifies the means". It is OK to lie, distort, kill, cheat, whatever, in order to achieve the desired objective. In this case, it was the removal of Saddam and the achievement of economic control over Iraq.

And let's not forget that the Clinton administration wanted inspections whereas Bush wanted to go in no matter the cost--how many people have been killed by American bullets? Colin Powell was sent to the UN with bullshit photos. And when all this shit (and more!) hit the fan and the lie was exposed they hid it.

You know, I'd love to read Tracy's response to smc's post. Because a) she seems curiously silent about it (which it appears to me she often does rather than admit she was wrong) and b) because her use of Clinton era quotes appears to me to be the typical juvenile response to challenges of "the other guy did it too." Reminds me of the religious saying scientists have their own myth in the form of evolution, which is tantamount to the religious saying "see, they're just as stupid as we are."

[transjen]

As the GOP controled house are hard at work demanding budget cuts ie :coupling: the working poor and demanding lower taxes for the rich and cutting taxes on corparations who are so over taxed like poor GE who made over 5 billion in profit and will not be paying one red cent in taxes
So someone tell me what's wrong with this picture
face it folks we go double :coupling: from the GOP and there trickle down encomny, GE making billions a year in profits and not paying taxes is Reaganomics showing it's ugly head
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

As the GOP controled house are hard at work demanding budget cuts ie :coupling: the working poor and demanding lower taxes for the rich and cutting taxes on corparations who are so over taxed like poor GE who made over 5 billion in profit and will not be paying one red cent in taxes
So someone tell me what's wrong with this picture
face it folks we go double :coupling: from the GOP and there trickle down encomny, GE making billions a year in profits and not paying taxes is Reaganomics showing it's ugly head
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

As the old saying goes, "We are being screwed glued and tattooed" :censored:

[transjen]

Well today Paul Ryan of the GOP gave his verson of the 2012 budget and i give him credit as he seems very serious about doing away with the red ink but thats where the credit ends as this budget is another GOP FU TO THE COMMON PERSON as once agian the GOP are showing who they really care about cutting trillions of dollars but cuting medicare and medicade and planed parents but giveing the top tax bracket another tax cut going with the GOP'S ideals that the rich shall not pay any of the national debit nor shall they sufer from any planed cuts and corpate welfare will also not sufer so the oil companies can rest easy and will recive billions from the goverment and the working poor will get to pay the tab and sufer from the cuts
looks like the 2012 budget is another big :coupling: from the GOP as the continue to only be looking out for the rich and big bussiness and give the rest of us the BS about trickle down
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Well today Paul Ryan of the GOP gave his verson of the 2012 budget and i give him credit as he seems very serious about doing away with the red ink but thats where the credit ends as this budget is another GOP FU TO THE COMMON PERSON as once agian the GOP are showing who they really care about cutting trillions of dollars but cuting medicare and medicade and planed parents but giveing the top tax bracket another tax cut going with the GOP'S ideals that the rich shall not pay any of the national debit nor shall they sufer from any planed cuts and corpate welfare will also not sufer so the oil companies can rest easy and will recive billions from the goverment and the working poor will get to pay the tab and sufer from the cuts
looks like the 2012 budget is another big :coupling: from the GOP as the continue to only be looking out for the rich and big bussiness and give the rest of us the BS about trickle down
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Don't worry Jen, the money saved is going to a good cause, the military. It will enable the military to bomb more countries with multimillion dollar bombs. You see, we are trying to protect the world from suicide bombers that kill themselves and other people. Our bombs are good bombs, they usually just kill bad guys. That's why they are so expensive. :censored:

[Enoch Root]

It all makes me think of the nobility of the past. They did everything they could not to pay taxes. And in places they paid none at all. All the burden was on the working people they exploited. Does this sound familiar?

That the financial burden is largely on the backs of the working people as opposed to the rich contributing a fair share appears--emphasis on appears--to be largely lost on the population. Or maybe it isn't lost but the news elides this. The news organizations in the US are mostly pathetic what with Fox News and their psycho newspeople and CNN and their ridiculous use of Twitter, Facebook, News Roulette, etc etc. It's quite embarrassing. And I don't see how they would air meaningful information regarding the financial troubles. This is what you get with corporate media. The people responsible for all these things are never held responsible because all that precious ad revenue would dry up.

[randolph]

It all makes me think of the nobility of the past. They did everything they could not to pay taxes. And in places they paid none at all. All the burden was on the working people they exploited. Does this sound familiar?

That the financial burden is largely on the backs of the working people as opposed to the rich contributing a fair share appears--emphasis on appears--to be largely lost on the population. Or maybe it isn't lost but the news elides this. The news organizations in the US are mostly pathetic what with Fox News and their psycho newspeople and CNN and their ridiculous use of Twitter, Facebook, News Roulette, etc etc. It's quite embarrassing. And I don't see how they would air meaningful information regarding the financial troubles. This is what you get with corporate media. The people responsible for all these things are never held responsible because all that precious ad revenue would dry up.

Check out the English version of Aljazerra. Some real news there.