Liberal free for all coming to an end [Archive]

TracyCoxx

10-13-2010, 11:19 PM

If the Repubs succeed in taking over the Gov with massive funding from foreign interests then its over for the middle class.
Proof? With the grass roots movement that's going on, I don't see why republicans would need to resort to foreign funding sources. Do you have evidence that this is anything more than dems flinging mud to see what sticks?

Blackwater types will be used to suppress any opposition. This will be great for gun lovers. Like the Taliban, they can cruise the streets in Humvees to enforce compliance. Gays, transsexuals, atheists and all others that do not fit the Sarah Palin vision of a pure America will be marginalized. When the blackwaters show up at my door, I will be fully loaded and ready for them.Oh boy lol. I think your biased media likes to set up Sarah Palin as the voice of republicans, but she's not.

http://pol.moveon.org/republicorp_orgchart/?id=24068-17478773-HAMxZnx&t=4
I've got one for you that's even worse. And what's more is it's true:
Tim Geithner, BO's secretary of treasury, allowed Steven Friedman to oversee Goldman Sachs. Who's Friedman? Former chairman of Goldman Sachs and was on the board of directors. Geithner OK'd this conflict of interest. Geithner also allows Friedman to keep his 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock while he oversees Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs stock rose from $78/share to $167 per share during the first year of Obama's administration.

The lobbyist for Goldman Sachs is Michael Pease. He joined the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

The reality of democrat political and business practices is far worse than anything moveon can make up about republicans.

TracyCoxx

10-13-2010, 11:30 PM

Well, couldn't make it much lower.

WHO figures on quality of healthcare by country show a definite trend:

Socialised Healthcare
1 France
...

And why would the US want to rank high on a list of countries with socialized healthcare?

Oh, indeed. Like doing stuff such as taking the entire social security surplus of over 2 trillion dollars which would be enough to cover the next few decades and...spending it...on the...armed forces...?Nope, sorry. The entire gulf war cost less than half that.

Or giving the rich tax cuts so they can invest more money in China and India and get rid of more American jobs?The rich pay the vast majority of the taxes. What kind of cuts are you talking about? Raising taxes, like BO wants to do is what will get corporations to move to other countries. When BO outspent Bush's 8 years by 2.5 times in 2 months and raised our debt, China ended up owning even more of the US. So again, what are you talking about?

TracyCoxx

10-13-2010, 11:33 PM

It mystifies me why conservatives love to be screwed by Republicans but scream to high heaven when screwed by Democrats. ;)

I don't suppose you've heard of the Tea Party movement?

:kiss:I don't mind playing with democrat :drool:cocks:drool:. I usually don't care what party a guy supports, I just want him to be a ;)HARDliner.:blush:

LOL :turnon:

randolph

10-13-2010, 11:45 PM

:kiss:I don't mind playing with democrat :drool:cocks:drool:. I usually don't care what party a guy supports, I just want him to be a ;)HARDliner.:blush:

Humm, Yes, I like to take hard positions on many issues especially ones that cum to fruition. ;)

The Conquistador

10-14-2010, 01:06 AM

Some wisdom from the past:

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

SluttyShemaleAnna

10-14-2010, 06:39 AM

TracyCoxx isn't a witch, she's you....

smc

10-14-2010, 07:17 AM

:kiss:I don't mind playing with democrat :drool:cocks:drool:. I usually don't care what party a guy supports, I just want him to be a ;)HARDliner.:blush:

My observation is that Republicans tell you up front that they're going to screw you. Democrats promise not to screw you, and once elected do it anyway.

Wait, are we talking about sex or politics? :lol:

TracyCoxx

10-14-2010, 07:36 AM

In a New York Times magazine article, BO sounds like he's coming to grips with the likely outcome of the election. He says republicans will either have a modest win or a big win. The funny thing is that he says they "will have to learn to get along with me". :lol:

Republicans will be busy undoing the disaster that BO has created and preventing it from getting worse. BO can say that republicans are the party of 'No', but that's rather naive. There's a fundamental difference in philosophies that goes beyond simply saying no and he knows that very well.

randolph

10-14-2010, 11:11 AM

Proof? With the grass roots movement that's going on, I don't see why republicans would need to resort to foreign funding sources. Do you have evidence that this is anything more than dems flinging mud to see what sticks?

Oh boy lol. I think your biased media likes to set up Sarah Palin as the voice of republicans, but she's not.

I've got one for you that's even worse. And what's more is it's true:
Tim Geithner, BO's secretary of treasury, allowed Steven Friedman to oversee Goldman Sachs. Who's Friedman? Former chairman of Goldman Sachs and was on the board of directors. Geithner OK'd this conflict of interest. Geithner also allows Friedman to keep his 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock while he oversees Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs stock rose from $78/share to $167 per share during the first year of Obama's administration.

The lobbyist for Goldman Sachs is Michael Pease. He joined the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

The reality of democrat political and business practices is far worse than anything moveon can make up about republicans.

Yes, the situation with the investment banks is appalling. Those bastards should be in jail, instead its business as usual. The Bush administration started pouring money over these banks and the Obama admin. has continued it. Could the economy have been saved by doing something else? What would have happened if these banks had not been bailed out and the ringleaders sent to jail?
Do you have an answer, Tracy?

randolph

10-14-2010, 11:25 AM

I lost faith in Obama when he appointed the chief pesticide lobbyist as our agricultural representative in foreign affairs. Michell's "organic" garden is just window dressing for the public. :frown:
We knew when Bush was elected that we would be screwed, we thought Obama would at least take us out to dinner before screwing us, such is not the case. :blush:

TracyCoxx

10-14-2010, 01:03 PM

Yes, the situation with the investment banks is appalling. Those bastards should be in jail, instead its business as usual. The Bush administration started pouring money over these banks and the Obama admin. has continued it. Could the economy have been saved by doing something else? What would have happened if these banks had not been bailed out and the ringleaders sent to jail?
Do you have an answer, Tracy?

My answer would be to listen to Ron Paul:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/ron-paul-bailou.html

BO misplaced the blame so the real problem isn't really going to be fixed and what's more, he hasn't done anything to prevent it from happening again.

TracyCoxx

10-14-2010, 01:11 PM

We knew when Bush was elected that we would be screwed, we thought Obama would at least take us out to dinner before screwing us, such is not the case. :blush:

Obama didn't waste any time. He pulled a shock awe campaign on America as soon as he took office.

But don't say you weren't warned ;)

randolph

10-14-2010, 01:24 PM

My answer would be to listen to Ron Paul:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/ron-paul-bailou.html

BO misplaced the blame so the real problem isn't really going to be fixed and what's more, he hasn't done anything to prevent it from happening again.

Yeah, I would have to go along with most of what Ron Paul has to say about the bail out. However, the so called free market capitalism he refers to is unstable without some regulation. Many of the regulations instituted by FDR worked well for many years until they were diluted or removed during the last thirty years. The lack of restraint allowed the economy of overheat and collapse.
The electronic age has revolutionized financial markets. Trading can be done on a split second basis and computer models can monitor trends instantly. Without controls, the computers could destroy the marker in seconds. The small investor can be wiped out before he can pick up the phone. The old style ideas about a "free" market are obsolete. Like it or not, there needs to be regulation.

The Conquistador

10-14-2010, 07:21 PM

Yeah, I would have to go along with most of what Ron Paul has to say about the bail out. However, the so called free market capitalism he refers to is unstable without some regulation. Many of the regulations instituted by FDR worked well for many years until they were diluted or removed during the last thirty years. The lack of restraint allowed the economy of overheat and collapse.
The electronic age has revolutionized financial markets. Trading can be done on a split second basis and computer models can monitor trends instantly. Without controls, the computers could destroy the marker in seconds. The small investor can be wiped out before he can pick up the phone. The old style ideas about a "free" market are obsolete. Like it or not, there needs to be regulation.

FDR's policies hurt people more than they helped and we are still feeling the effects of it today.

I agree that there needs to be regulations but not like the kind we have now. The gov. should be acting as a referee and setting a fair playing ground, not determining the outcome for everyone.

TracyCoxx

10-27-2010, 06:29 AM

It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?

smc

10-27-2010, 07:32 AM

randolph

10-27-2010, 09:47 AM

TracyCoxx

10-27-2010, 02:15 PM

I don't support the Democrats or Republicans, but members should know that the Black Panther allegation here has been shown conclusively to be a hoax. It's amazing what fear of the new will do to people's minds.
Oh that's good. So what did all that turn out to be?

TracyCoxx

10-27-2010, 02:17 PM

Oh My! The poor Republicans always abused by nasty Democrats and their evil buddies. We all know that Republicans always run fair honest campaigns, don't we? :lol:

Of course. See even Randolph agrees!

randolph

10-27-2010, 03:09 PM

My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program. :)

TracyCoxx

10-29-2010, 08:05 AM

My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program. :)

So is mime. Unfortunately it's two years behind where it would have been if it weren't for the democrats policies of forcing banks to give loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to ay them back. And unfortunately they won't be what they could be in the future because the stimulus packages were a bandaid, not a fix. And that nasty problem of giving out loans to uncreditworthy people... still a problem. So we will have to do all this again.

randolph

10-29-2010, 09:34 AM

So is mime. Unfortunately it's two years behind where it would have been if it weren't for the democrats policies of forcing banks to give loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to ay them back. And unfortunately they won't be what they could be in the future because the stimulus packages were a bandaid, not a fix. And that nasty problem of giving out loans to uncreditworthy people... still a problem. So we will have to do all this again.

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail. This is very simplistic thinking. The banks that retained a conservative policy of making loans are still here, they were not "forced" to make bad loans. Greenspan's free for all policies along with rampant manipulation of mortgages into bonds by Wall street investment banks, were the major cause of the meltdown.
The entire financial industry came to believe that we had figured out how to make prosperity permanent. Consequently, risk was minimalized and loans which used to be considered risky were now okay.
Greed rules!

TracyCoxx

10-30-2010, 11:05 PM

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail.

We already went over this.

The Wall Street Journal would beg to differ with them...

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

How did we get here?
Let's review:

In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion.

In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse.

It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them.

By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. However, their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that -- despite their subsidized borrowing rates -- they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates.

In the wake of Freddie's 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.

If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing?

The answer was their affordable-housing mission...It was the CRA that had Fannie & Freddy backing loans to the poor. Banks would make the loans because Fannie & Freddy removed the risk. And also if they didn't, CRA would score then negatively and they wouldn't receive as much money from the government.

TracyCoxx

10-30-2010, 11:11 PM

In the news: The Justice Department is sending a small pack of election observers to Arizona as Hispanic groups sound the alarm over an anti-illegal immigration group's mass e-mail seeking to recruit Election Day volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting.

Hey 'Hispanic groups'. Illegals have no right to vote... get over it!

randolph

10-31-2010, 08:24 AM

8 Nasty Conservative Lies About the Democrats and Obama That Must Be Debunked Before the Election

By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on October 25, 2010, Printed on October 30, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148614/

There are a number things the public "knows (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010083423/things-people-know)" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs.
Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there:
1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget (http://www.ourfuture.org/node/44430) had a $1.416 trillion deficit (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010020504/roots-conservative-failure-bush-called-deficits-incredibly-positive-news). Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E54M20101016).
2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html). 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010083102/tax-cuts-leave-nothing-behind-infrastructure-investment-leaves-behind-infrastr), which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.
3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/worldbusiness/25iht-25bush2.16463997.html) and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts (http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/09/lets_see_if_we.htm) to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010093502/jobs-romer-leaving-wh-says-more-stimulus-needed-right-says-stimulus-killed-rec). In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67N55X20100824), the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.
5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104111/how-tax-cuts-rich-made-between-business-predatory).
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104007/its-lack-demand-stupid). Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts (http://www.speakoutca.org/weblog/2009/12/tax-cuts-and-de.html).
6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O4NV20100318).
7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104222/top-10-crazy-things-conservatives-say-social-security-edition), is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010031330/dear-deficit-commission-its-not-hard) has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010083105/what-social-security-report-says-vs-what-they-tell-you-it-says) for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010083210/it-social-security-or-deficit-commission) (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.
8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/maybe-we-really-do-want-g_b_273123.html) and the money it spends is on We, the People (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010072813/who-said-we-want-less-government-protecting-and-empowering-us). Many people do not know that it is government that builds (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010051805/reagan-revolution-comes-home-roost-america-crumbling) the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.
This stuff really matters.
If the public votes in a new Congress because a majority of voters think this one tripled the deficit, and as a result the new people follow the policies that actually tripled the deficit, the country could go broke.
If the public votes in a new Congress that rejects the idea of helping to create demand in the economy because they think it didn't work, then the new Congress could do things that cause a depression.
If the public votes in a new Congress because they think the health care reform will increase the deficit when it is actually projected to reduce the deficit, then the new Congress could repeal health care reform and thereby make the deficit worse. And on it goes.
Dave Johnson blogs at Seeing the Forest (http://seeingtheforest.com/) and is a Fellow at the Commonweal Institute (http://commonwealinstitute.org/). He has over 25 years of technology industry experience.
? 2010 Campaign for America's Future All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148614/

franalexes

10-31-2010, 07:54 PM

and other ghost stories abound. It is that time of year.

randolph

10-31-2010, 08:43 PM

and other ghost stories abound. It is that time of year.

Hey you read my posts, you must be bored. ;)

TracyCoxx

10-31-2010, 09:55 PM

8 Nasty Conservative Lies About the Democrats and Obama That Must Be Debunked Before the Election

Typical liberal M.O.: Accuse others for what liberals themselves are guilty of. The 2008 campaign was run on nothing but lies which was the crest of the wave of lies started in the 2004 campaign. After 9/11 the dems were acting in America's best interest, which happened to be the way Bush wanted to go. But then they realized going along with Bush wasn't going to help them win the election in 2004 so then began the smear campaign of George Bush. There are legitimate things to fault the guy on, but apparently truth wasn't enough for the democrats. Not much of America was buying this BS in 2004, but with the constant liberal bias in the media, enough people bought the lies instead of looking into the truth that the physical embodiment of all the liberal BS appeared in the name of Barack Obama and became president. Without Bush to whine about, and BO having to actually govern rather than drone on and on about his nebulous 'hope and change', Americans have apparently started thinking again and are about to kick the bums out. What do liberals do? Same as always... start spreading lies and apparently resorting to illegal measures to cushion the blow this election day. But back to liberal lies... Randolf, you posted someone's article about debunking "conservative lies", so I'll post someone's article which debunks your article.

1) President Obama actually reduced the deficit since George Bush?s last deficit was $1.416 trillion.

In a sleight of hand worthy of a 7-year-old magician wannabe, he notes that, since Bush signed the 2009 budget, he is therefore responsible for all the debt in 2009, which was $1.416 trillion. He does not, however, explain that the stimulus was passed that year and added drastically to the deficit for 2009. Why is there no mention this? Because the author is interested only in political point-scoring, not the truth.

2) Obama actually cut taxes

This one is actually true. President Obama did cut taxes as a part of the stimulus. But apparently those tax cuts had no effect on the deficit described above, being replaced by money from the happiness rainbow tree that the author believes Obama keeps in the back yard. It is entertaining that the author says these tax cuts were ?wasted? since he will soon cite the CBO report on the stimulus, which claims that the tax cuts helped stimulate growth. Consistency is apparently not as much fun as throwing poo.

3) President Obama didn?t bail out the banks, George Bush did.

True, but Obama did vote for the bailout, as did John McCain. Perhaps he is claiming that Senators aren?t important and shouldn?t be held responsible for their own actions and that Congress has virtually nothing to do with governing the nation, in which case the whole article seems irrelevant since it?s not a presidential election and changing Congress won?t actually have an effect on anything. It?s hard to tell, he?s short on details.

4) The stimulus totally worked

He cites the CBO report on the stimulus. Whoop-de-do. The CBO report is an estimate based on an algorithm. When the Obama administration went to the CBO before the stimulus, the CBO plugged the numbers into a computer and said ?If you spend X money, you will get Y jobs?. Nearly 2 years later, the Obama administration asked the CBO to plug the numbers in again and ? surprise! ? they got the same result. It is not based on any actual measurement of the job market, it?s based on a model.

A better way of determining if the stimulus worked would be to ask ?Did we follow the unemployment curve the administration said we would?? The answer is ?hell no?. Unemployment is far worse than the administration predicted with the stimulus. This is a point which the author explains at length. I?m just kidding; he totally ignores it, perhaps imagining that he had addressed it but could no longer make out the words from behind the spittle covering his laptop screen.

5) Businesses don?t hire based on tax cuts

Young, small businesses hire more than big businesses. They will usually work the people they have as much as possible until it becomes clear that they cannot pull in any more business without new people. Fewer taxes means more money. More money could simply mean more profit (as it has recently with larger companies), or it could mean more growth, more employees, even more money. It varies from business to business. But saying ?it?s complicated? does not give the author the intellectual political anger management outlet he clearly needs, so I guess we should be glad he?s not biting anyone?s fingers off.

6) Health care reform reduces gov?t deficits

Here, he cites an article from before the health care reform bill was passed. Since then, the estimate has jumped up as things like the 21% cut in Medicare reimbursement was postponed, then postponed again and large companies like McDonald?s got permission to ignore the law when they told the government that they would drop coverage for their employees if they didn?t get a waiver.

Thus, the various cost-savings of the bill have been shown implausible or manipulative (which is exactly what I said would happen to those absurd estimates nearly a year ago). They were nothing but projection manipulation devices and anyone who wasn?t drunk could see that was the case.

7) Social Security is fine. It?s not a Ponzi scheme.

Yes, Social Security has run a surplus? up to this year when it ran a decifit. Projections have it pushing back into surplus for a couple years until, in 2016, it dips back into deficit forever. ?No problem,? the increasingly dense author of the article says, ?There?s a trust fund?. Yeah? a trust fund held in US debt. The SS trust fund buys up US debt, which the government pays back regularly, so it?s a pretty safe asset. That trust fund should last for a while, but eventually we will be paying Social Security returns to older investors (the elderly) from their own money or money paid by newer investors (the younger generation).

That is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

8 ) Government spending is good for the economy

Here the author talks about how the government spends so much on infrastructure, roads, airports, schools (in an ideal world these things are all good for the economy) but only a ?small part of the government?s budget? is for welfare and foreign aid. I?m kind of funny inasmuch as I think that 60% of our budget is not a ?small part?. (I?m counting SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and ?other? mandatory programs. But not interest on the debt.)

Roads and schools? (Transportation and Education) They account for 3.3% of the budget. Since welfare and foreign aid are such a ?small part? of the budget, the author won?t mind if we get rid of it. I?d be delighted if we reduced the other parts of the budget so that Transportation and Education made the bulk of it.

Overall, the author targets builds up conservative strawmen of ?lies? and then uses liberal strawmen (and selective data) to ?prove? them wrong. This article is nothing more than red meat for people who already agree and don?t have time to do the research themselves. It?s sloppy, lazy, angry and impotent. And, worst of all, it spreads disinformation. Hopefully this post is something of an antidote.

TracyCoxx

10-31-2010, 09:58 PM

smc

10-31-2010, 10:20 PM

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

I didn't answer because I cannot figure out what you are asking. Your question was: "So what did all that turn out to be?" I have absolutely no idea what "all that" is in the context of "turn out."

randolph

10-31-2010, 11:01 PM

Typical liberal M.O.: Accuse others for what liberals themselves are guilty of. The 2008 campaign was run on nothing but lies which was the crest of the wave of lies started in the 2004 campaign. After 9/11 the dems were acting in America's best interest, which happened to be the way Bush wanted to go. But then they realized going along with Bush wasn't going to help them win the election in 2004 so then began the smear campaign of George Bush. There are legitimate things to fault the guy on, but apparently truth wasn't enough for the democrats. Not much of America was buying this BS in 2004, but with the constant liberal bias in the media, enough people bought the lies instead of looking into the truth that the physical embodiment of all the liberal BS appeared in the name of Barack Obama and became president. Without Bush to whine about, and BO having to actually govern rather than drone on and on about his nebulous 'hope and change', Americans have apparently started thinking again and are about to kick the bums out. What do liberals do? Same as always... start spreading lies and apparently resorting to illegal measures to cushion the blow this election day. But back to liberal lies... Randolf, you posted someone's article about debunking "conservative lies", so I'll post someone's article which debunks your article.

Thanks Tracy now I have both sides. ;)

TracyCoxx

11-01-2010, 01:00 AM

I didn't answer because I cannot figure out what you are asking. Your question was: "So what did all that turn out to be?" I have absolutely no idea what "all that" is in the context of "turn out."

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1).

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

smc

11-01-2010, 11:50 AM

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1).

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

I want to make clear that I am a supporter of neither the furthest left wing of the Democratic Party, the furthest right wing of the Republican Party, Libertarianism, or anything in between those poles. My interest in this issue has to do with truth and reasonable discourse about things that actually matter.

So, with that disclaimer, here is my response, Tracy.

You are correct about one thing, and it has to do with my use of the word "hoax." I misused that word by failing to make the context clear. What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax.

Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge.

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/the-new-black-panther-party-is-the-new-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.

Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

randolph

11-01-2010, 12:57 PM

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/the-new-black-panther-party-is-the-new-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.
Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

Very well put SMC.
Tracy is very well informed from a very conservative standpoint. Fortunately, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all these ultra liberal and ultra conservative views.

tslust

11-01-2010, 07:27 PM

Tommorrow's the big day boys and gurls.:kiss:

randolph

11-01-2010, 08:13 PM

I hope tomorrow is not the start of Armageddon.:eek:
There is lots of good people out there, they just need to VOTE!:yes:

tslust

11-02-2010, 02:15 AM

I hope tomorrow is not the start of Armageddon.:eek:
There is lots of good people out there, they just need to VOTE!:yes:

That first cartoon funny.:lol::lol:

In all seriousness, and not to open a can of worms, the Federal government needs to be downsized.

randolph

11-02-2010, 09:30 AM

That first cartoon funny.:lol::lol:

In all seriousness, and not to open a can of worms, the Federal government needs to be downsized.

How true, how about starting with the military industrial complex. Imagine what the country could do if we weren't spending trillions of dollars on wars.

Slavetoebony

11-02-2010, 11:13 AM

If voting changed anything the establishment would make it illegal.

Stay at home. Don't bother to vote. Regardless of what party they belong to, they are all a bunch of crooks.

TracyCoxx

11-02-2010, 11:07 PM

What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax.

Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge.

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/the-new-black-panther-party-is-the-new-acorn0.html

So rather than reading Washington Times' article, I should read the Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/the-new-black-panther-party-is-the-new-acorn0.html)? In this article is So how did the incident become a replay of the ACORN scandal? There's some resemblance between the two: an organization with unacceptable practices and a vague connection to the Obama administration (through voter registration drives in the ACORN case and Justice Department litigation in the Panther case) becomes a tool for critics of the White House to attack it as corrupt and illegitimate. But as in the ACORN case, the scandal is minimal (much of the ACORN hit has been discredited (http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003020001))?and the allegations against Obama flimsy.Note the link for 'discredited' in the last sentence which is a link to Media Matters. This unbiased article uses Media Matters as a source? Do you know how biased Media Matters is? They receive millions from wealthy liberals, and funds from moveon.org and the New Democrat Network.

Rather than writing about some week correlation between the voter intimidation story and the Acorn scandal in an attempt to downplay both why doesn't he report these facts:
* After winning a case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party, the Obama Department of Justice inexplicably dropped the charges.

* The direct ties between the NAACP and The New Black Panther Party.

* J. Christian Adams, a legitimate government whistle-blower who has testified that he was told by his fellow DOJ staffers to all but ignore cases where the defendant is a minority and the plaintiff white.

Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

I have commented about Obama's foreign policy and economic policy as well as health care and other major topics. But right now there's a pretty big election going on and I think the constant efforts of the left to illegally and dishonestly influence elections is also a major topic. There's ACORN who have been busted all over the country trying to register people multiple times or register non-existent people. There's the odd voter machines in Nevada that list Harry Reid as a default. There's even the White House who wanted to move the census from the Department of Commerce to the White House in a blatant attempt to influence future elections. The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote. Subversion of elections by the left is reaching epidemic levels and for the legitimacy of the government it has to stop.

TracyCoxx

11-02-2010, 11:10 PM

How true, how about starting with the military industrial complex. Imagine what the country could do if we weren't spending trillions of dollars on wars.

There's probably a lot that can be cut in the military as well as several other areas. Hell, there are whole departments of the government that could be cut. But obviously you wouldn't want to cut too much of the military.

Stay at home. Don't bother to vote. Regardless of what party they belong to, they are all a bunch of crooks.Excellent advice, and I've told it to all my democrat friends.

TracyCoxx

11-02-2010, 11:49 PM

Reid stays as senate majority leader... ughhh.
Pelosi is ousted... Yes!!! Good riddance b[leep].

Well one thing is for sure... The liberal free for all has come to an end! :coupling:

randolph

11-03-2010, 12:18 AM

Reid stays as senate majority leader... ughhh.
Pelosi is ousted... Yes!!! Good riddance b[leep].

Well one thing is for sure... The liberal free for all has come to an end! :coupling:

Well, lets hope all these clowns take off their makeup and get down to business to save the country. we are getting very close to the precipice.

tslust

11-03-2010, 12:51 AM

How true, how about starting with the military industrial complex. Imagine what the country could do if we weren't spending trillions of dollars on wars.

The Federal Government is far too intrusive about things that they have no buisness being involved with. For example education, enviromental protection, marriage, NASA, welfare, and now health care to name a few. The Tenth Amendment gives these matters to the individual States. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (BTW I am a believer in State's Rights.)

smc

11-03-2010, 06:19 AM

So rather than reading Washington Times' article, I should read the Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/the-new-black-panther-party-is-the-new-acorn0.html)? In this article is Note the link for 'discredited' in the last sentence which is a link to Media Matters. This unbiased article uses Media Matters as a source? Do you know how biased Media Matters is? They receive millions from wealthy liberals, and funds from moveon.org and the New Democrat Network.

Rather than writing about some week correlation between the voter intimidation story and the Acorn scandal in an attempt to downplay both why doesn't he report these facts:
* After winning a case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party, the Obama Department of Justice inexplicably dropped the charges.

* The direct ties between the NAACP and The New Black Panther Party.

* J. Christian Adams, a legitimate government whistle-blower who has testified that he was told by his fellow DOJ staffers to all but ignore cases where the defendant is a minority and the plaintiff white.

I have commented about Obama's foreign policy and economic policy as well as health care and other major topics. But right now there's a pretty big election going on and I think the constant efforts of the left to illegally and dishonestly influence elections is also a major topic. There's ACORN who have been busted all over the country trying to register people multiple times or register non-existent people. There's the odd voter machines in Nevada that list Harry Reid as a default. There's even the White House who wanted to move the census from the Department of Commerce to the White House in a blatant attempt to influence future elections. The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote. Subversion of elections by the left is reaching epidemic levels and for the legitimacy of the government it has to stop.

When you can see past your anger and read what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I'm saying, perhaps we can have a conversation. Just don't attribute to me things I didn't write.

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

randolph

11-03-2010, 10:28 AM

Sigh, two years of gridlock.

The Conquistador

11-03-2010, 12:06 PM

The Federal Government is far too intrusive about things that they have no buisness being involved with. For example education, enviromental protection, marriage, NASA, welfare, and now health care to name a few. The Tenth Amendment gives these matters to the individual States. (BTW I am a believer in State's Rights.)

Huzzah! The Feds should only be involved in national defense and the wellbeing of the country as it was originally intended. And I quote Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There are only 17 things that the fed has power over, which is mainly dealing with national defense and some regulation of our currency.

TracyCoxx

11-04-2010, 06:34 AM

LMAO!!! I had tears in my eyes laughing so hard at this :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdES0GP0KhI

TracyCoxx

11-04-2010, 06:36 AM

Sigh, two years of gridlock.

Yes, unfortunately there will be gridlock, but at least they will be spending less ;)

smc

11-04-2010, 07:57 AM

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

When I didn't answer a question of yours, TracyCoxx. you posted your "hearing crickets" comment (above) -- implying that I was avoiding answering. I explained that your question was unclear, and as soon as you clarified it I answered.

Now I've posed some clear, direct questions to you. You've been back to the thread since those questions were posted, but have skipped over them. Perhaps you'd like to retract the implication of your "cricket" comment?

TracyCoxx

11-05-2010, 01:09 AM

When I didn't answer a question of yours, TracyCoxx. you posted your "hearing crickets" comment (above) -- implying that I was avoiding answering.Yes, after several days.

Now I've posed some clear, direct questions to you. You've been back to the thread since those questions were posted, but have skipped over them.Your impatience runs out after several hours. Sorry to keep you waiting but when I posted my last post it was from my cell phone. I save the deeper discussions for when I'm on my laptop.

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

I rarely enjoy advertisements, that is what my 'mute' button is for. But to restrict them is to restrict freedom of speech. As US deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart pointed out to the Supreme Court, the law would even require banning a book that made the same points as the Citizens United video. Once we get to this point you can clearly see that this is unconstitutional.

Annoying Citizens United videos doesn't hold a candle to "New" Black Panthers brandishing clubs and intimidating voters, or to ACORN's attempt at the highest levels to register voters multiple times plus register non-existent voters and dead voters, or to attempts by liberals to allow illegal aliens to vote, or to the fracking president trying to grab control of the US Census office!

And if those videos are so bad, what about the plethora of left-wing media outlets that spew biased news? Everyone complains about Fox News, but what about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, and on and on? And don't forget Hollywood with their vocal left wing actors and movies riddled with liberal politics. But hey... it's free speech.

TracyCoxx

11-05-2010, 08:15 AM

Obama says the voters just didn't understand what he was trying to do. Does anyone buy this? Or did the voters understand and whole heartedly reject it?

smc

11-05-2010, 08:26 AM

Yes, after several days.

The very next day, in fact ... but whose counting?

I have three sets of questions for you.

1. As I wrote in an earlier post, "I don't support the Democrats or Republicans." I believe that the Democratic Party is guilty of electoral fraud and manipulation in many instances throughout history, and I have no problem believing that Democrats (who, after all, serve the interests of a wing of the very same people served by the Republicans) do things to ensure votes go their way. Tracy, do you accept that the Republicans do things like this, too? You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that.

2. Do you think one's ability to exercise "freedom of speech" should be dictated by one's level of wealth? Let's accept your premise about Citizens United. In the interest of ensuring the greatest amount of freedom of speech, do you support public financing of elections or some other way to ensure that everyone's voice can be heard so that those with the most millions to spend cannot drown out everyone else simply by virtue of having those millions? This is not a left-right issue.

3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right? It seems to me that the greatest freedom of speech is that which allows us a real discourse, together, as Americans -- something sorely lacking in our body politic today. Absent disclosure, it is difficult to know whether the voices we hear are genuine, and genuinely FOR what they purport to be for, or whether there is manipulation at play. For instance, if a corporation or corporate group that publicly supports tax credits for businesses that send jobs overseas funds a political ad (without disclosure) that accuses a politician of such support, that would be worth knowing, don't you think. Similarly, if a union stands to benefit from a certain outcome in the legislature in, say, one state and (without disclosure) funds an ad attacking a candidate in another state who has not voted as the union wishes, wouldn't it be good to know -- in the interest of encouraging a genuine public discourse in the context of freedom of speech?

These are not partisan questions. I hope you can step back from the vitriol expressed in your last post and consider these thoughtfully, in the interest of genuine dialogue. Otherwise, there's no point in continuing. You can have the thread and vent, and I'll stick to pictures of gorgeous girl cocks.

franalexes

11-05-2010, 04:37 PM

Obama says the voters just didn't understand what he was trying to do. Does anyone buy this? Or did the voters understand and whole heartedly reject it?

Let's keep it simple. Since Obama thinks the people are too simple; let's just say the Democrats got their arse kicked.:eek:

TracyCoxx

11-06-2010, 12:58 AM

Yes, after several days.The very next day, in fact ... but whose counting?OMG, you're still whining about the crickets?

The question was asked here:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=162571&postcount=32
It says "One week ago". Kind of vague...

And I'm hearing crickets here:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=163053&postcount=43
It says "5 days ago". Yesterday it said one week vs 4 days, that's at least a 3 day difference so I called it 'several'. Happy?

I have three sets of questions for you.

1. As I wrote in an earlier post, "I don't support the Democrats or Republicans." I believe that the Democratic Party is guilty of electoral fraud and manipulation in many instances throughout history, and I have no problem believing that Democrats (who, after all, serve the interests of a wing of the very same people served by the Republicans) do things to ensure votes go their way. Tracy, do you accept that the Republicans do things like this, too?
Not that I have seen. But if you point out an actual instance of republicans committing voter fraud then fine. I'll admit it if it's there. I am not a hard core republican, I am a conservative libertarian. I have a few problems with republicans, but they are the lesser of two evils. You've only known me while BO was campaigning and while he's been president so you only see me griping about him. If you knew me when Clinton was in office you'd see me complaining that his fling with Monica was not an impeachable offense and that the republicans were just wasting time and money over something that was going to go nowhere. During the beginning of Bush's term, you'd hear me complaining about him banning stem cell research and saying he's anti-science and too religious, and also complaining about this 'documented worker' bullcrap. When his father was president, you'd hear me fuming that the superconducting super collider was canceled right in the middle of construction and again declaring republicans as anti-science and declaring that from now on I'm voting for the engineer/scientist party.

You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that.I haven't heard anything like that happening during the Bush administration, and I doubt it did since although illegal immigration was bad during Bush's term, it wasn't as bad as it is now. And the Bush administration wasn't nearly as hostile towards Arizona either.

2. Do you think one's ability to exercise "freedom of speech" should be dictated by one's level of wealth? Let's accept your premise about Citizens United. In the interest of ensuring the greatest amount of freedom of speech, do you support public financing of elections or some other way to ensure that everyone's voice can be heard so that those with the most millions to spend cannot drown out everyone else simply by virtue of having those millions? This is not a left-right issue.It's not perfect, but the alternative in unacceptable. America is all about free speech. Besides, although corporations have been restricted in the past, news organizations never have been restricted in reporting with their left leaning bias. How do non-wealthy conservative candidates compete against that? bts, George Soros just donated several million dollars for NPR stations to hire 100 reporters. I'm sure they will be fair and balanced.

3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right?Yes. Why not?

TracyCoxx

11-06-2010, 01:01 AM

Let's keep it simple. Since Obama thinks the people are too simple; let's just say the Democrats got their arse kicked.:eek:

That they did :) I've got my fingers crossed big time for the next election.

smc

11-06-2010, 07:38 AM

OMG, you're still whining about the crickets?

The question was asked here:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=162571&postcount=32
It says "One week ago". Kind of vague...

And I'm hearing crickets here:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=163053&postcount=43
It says "5 days ago". Yesterday it said one week vs 4 days, that's at least a 3 day difference so I called it 'several'. Happy?

I have an unavoidable work deadline this weekend that will keep me from answering your longer questions immediately -- although I will show you examples of voter suppression during the Bush administration by Republicans, including a case in New Hampshire that resulted in a guilty plea and prison time for an operative of the Republican National Committee.

On the "crickets" issue, how about dropping the insults ("whining"). If necessary, I can go to the moderator console and show you the exact time and date of the posts in question. My point in mentioning it was to bring up a broader point about civility in the discussion, which I have mentioned more explicitly in other posts.

ila

11-06-2010, 10:01 AM

........It's not perfect, but the alternative in unacceptable. America is all about free speech........

Really, Tracy? You should study your country's history. The USA is all about taxation without representation. That is how it all started.

randolph

11-06-2010, 11:07 AM

Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'
Commentary: How: Gold. Tax cuts. Debts. Wars. Fat Cats. Class gap. No fiscal discipline
By Paul B. Farrell (PaulBFarrell@charter.net), MarketWatch
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."
Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."
Jobs recovery could take years
In the wake of Friday's disappointing jobs report, Neal Lipschutz and Phil Izzo discuss new predictions that it could be many years before the nation's unemployment rate reaches pre-recession levels.
Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish.
But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened?
We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.
Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely:
Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy
Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."
In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."
No more. Today there's a "new catechism" that's "little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy." Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy.
Stockman's indictment warns that the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:"

I believe party affiliation is irrelevant here. This is a crucial subject that must be explored because it further exposes a dangerous historical trend where politics is so partisan it's having huge negative consequences.
Yes, the GOP does have a welfare-warfare state: Stockman says "the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending, exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget -- entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans' fiscal religion."
When Fed chief Paul Volcker "crushed inflation" in the '80s we got a "solid economic rebound." But then "the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts." By 2009, they "reduced federal revenues to 15% of gross domestic product," lowest since the 1940s. Still today they're irrationally demanding an extension of those "unaffordable Bush tax cuts [that] would amount to a bankruptcy filing."
Recently Bush made matters far worse by "rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures." Bush also gave in "on domestic spending cuts, signing into law $420 billion in nondefense appropriations, a 65% percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy." Takes two to tango.
Stage 3. Wall Street's deadly 'vast, unproductive expansion'
Stockman continues pounding away: "The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector." He warns that "Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation." Wrong, not oblivious. Self-interested Republican loyalists like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner knew exactly what they were doing.
They wanted the economy, markets and the government to be under the absolute control of Wall Street's too-greedy-to-fail banks. They conned Congress and the Fed into bailing out an estimated $23.7 trillion debt. Worse, they have since destroyed meaningful financial reforms. So Wall Street is now back to business as usual blowing another bigger bubble/bust cycle that will culminate in the coming "American Apocalypse."
Stockman refers to Wall Street's surviving banks as "wards of the state." Wrong, the opposite is true. Wall Street now controls Washington, and its "unproductive" trading is "extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives." Wall Street banks like Goldman were virtually bankrupt, would have never survived without government-guaranteed deposits and "virtually free money from the Fed's discount window to cover their bad bets."
Stage 4. New American Revolution class-warfare coming soon
Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million."
As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."
Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy.
Warning: this black swan won't be pretty, will shock, soon
His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pity that the modern Republican party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed more than ever."
Wrong: There are far bigger things to "pity."
First, that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit in the bleachers passively watching this deadly partisan game like it's just another TV reality show.
Second, that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets of the Wall Street conspiracy that controls Washington they are helpless and blind.
And third, there's a depressing sense that Stockman will be dismissed as a traitor, his message lost in the 24/7 news cycle ... until the final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war.
So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect.

I had to leave part 1 of this article out in order to get it to fit.

I thought Tracy might be interested in this. We will have to wait and see won't we?
That's right Tracy, keep your fingers crossed.

smc

11-06-2010, 02:20 PM

You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that.

I haven't heard anything like that happening during the Bush administration, and I doubt it did since although illegal immigration was bad during Bush's term, it wasn't as bad as it is now. And the Bush administration wasn't nearly as hostile towards Arizona either.

Remember, I support neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. I believe them to represent two wings of the people who oppress all the rest of us, and voting for them is a vote against my own economic interests.

That said, let me clarify about voter suppression. It seems as if you thought I was being specific about the Bush administration doing something in Arizona. I was not I only used your example to pose my question.

I will give you one non-Arizona example of Republican voter suppression during the Bush administration.

In 2002, Republican officials in New Hampshire attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by jamming phones. Professional telemarketers from a company based in northern Virgina, "GOP Marketplace," were hired to make repeated hang-up calls to to the telephone numbers that the Democratic state committee and the state firefighter's union were using for voters to call and get rides to the polls. By keeping these lines busy, the intent was to suppress the number of voters who could ask the Democratic Party for such rides. This voter suppression effort was undertaken in the interest of getting John E. Sununu, the son of George H.W. Bush's first White House chief of staff, elected to the U.S. Senate. Sununu won a narrow victory.

Four men were convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison for their involvement. There was a guilty plea by Allen Raymond to several felony charges in federal court in Concord, New Hampshire on June 30, 2004, which really brought the case to the public's attention. The prosecutor in Ramond's case indicated to the court that Raymond had been contacted about the phone jamming by "a former colleague who was then an official in a national political organization." Not long after, the Manchester Union-Leader, one of the most right-wing daily newspapers in the country, reported that the unnamed individual had a significant role in the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign." He was later identified as James Tobin, then serving as the New England regional director for the Bush campaign. He resigned in October from that post and in December was indicted and arraigned on two criminal counts each of conspiring to make harassing telephone calls and aiding and abetting telephone harassment.

Later, Allen Raymond was sentenced to five months in federal prison. His accomplice, Charles McGee, received seven months. Tobin refused to cooperate, and during his trial questions came up about who was paying for his defense. Ultimately, it was revealed that the Republican National Committe was paying for his lawyer.

Later in this case, after being convicted, Tobin was freed on appeal -- but on legal technicalities, not the merits of the actual case of voter suppression. Raymond Allen wrote a book that sold quite well, How to Rig an Election.

This is but one example of how both parties seek to undermine voting rights, Tracy. I can provide many more. One of the more common things Republicans do is to send letters to minority voters (yes, U.S. citizens who happen to be black and live in poverty-stricken election districts) disguised as "official" in some capacity telling people that if they show up at the polls they run the risk of arrest for any outstanding parket tickets, or must pass a reading test, or may be subject to imprisonment if they have moved, etc. Democrats pulled the same kind of stuff in the South before the Voting Rights Act.

It's despicable, but voter suppression efforts are certainly not the purview of one party or one administration.

smc

11-06-2010, 04:43 PM

3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right?

Yes. Why not?

I'm glad to hear that. Let's be more specific. Do you therefore support H.R.5175, The DISCLOSE Act, which was introduced in Congress earlier this year? Its official brief description is: "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes."

The "additional disclosure requirements" would enhance "disclaimers," thus requiring that those who provide the funds for ads take responsibility for them; enhance disclosures, requiring that the money be traceable to its source(s); require that corporations and organizations (including unions) disclose to shareholders and members how and where money was spent on political ads; and tighten the coordination rules that are meant to keep non-party entities from coordinating their work with official campaigns as a way around limits on spending.

In brief, as law the bill would require disclosure by donors supporting campaign advertising, and require sponsors to approve TV ads personally, as candidates are required to do. So, for example, a corporation, wealthy businessman, union ... no one ... could set up a group with a name like Americans for Sound Policy and then run an ad attacking a candidate without the funders being identified in the ad.

This bill passed the House of Representatives in June. A similar bill was blocked twice in the Senate by Republicans, who voted against invoking cloture to keep it from coming before the full body. The last such block, in late September, fell short by a vote of 59 to 39 (60 votes are required for cloture). All Democrats voted for cloture; two Republicans did not vote; all other Republicans voted to block the bill.

The Republican leadership argued that the Democrats were trying to "rig the system" to their advantage. How can there be an advantage for any one side in mandating full disclosure in a democracy, unless someone wants to keep something a secret?

randolph

11-06-2010, 04:48 PM

I'm glad to hear that. Let's be more specific. Do you therefore support H.R.5175, The DISCLOSE Act, which was introduced in Congress earlier this year? Its official brief description is: "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes."

The "additional disclosure requirements" would enhance "disclaimers," thus requiring that those who provide the funds for ads take responsibility for them; enhance disclosures, requiring that the money be traceable to its source(s); require that corporations and organizations (including unions) disclose to shareholders and members how and where money was spent on political ads; and tighten the coordination rules that are meant to keep non-party entities from coordinating their work with official campaigns as a way around limits on spending.

In brief, as law the bill would require disclosure by donors supporting campaign advertising, and require sponsors to approve TV ads personally, as candidates are required to do. So, for example, a corporation, wealthy businessman, union ... no one ... could set up a group with a name like Americans for Sound Policy and then run an ad attacking a candidate without the funders being identified in the ad.

This bill passed the House of Representatives in June. A similar bill was blocked twice in the Senate by Republicans, who voted against invoking cloture to keep it from coming before the full body. The last such block, in late September, fell short by a vote of 59 to 39 (60 votes are required for cloture). All Democrats voted for cloture; two Republicans did not vote; all other Republicans voted to block the bill.

The Republican leadership argued that the Democrats were trying to "rig the system" to their advantage. How can their be an advantage for any one side in mandating full disclosure in a democracy, unless someone wants to keep something a secret?

Its obvious the Repubs are against this. They would lose elections. :yes:

ts_addict

11-06-2010, 08:22 PM

ila

11-06-2010, 08:53 PM

TracyCoxx

11-07-2010, 01:30 AM

although I will show you examples of voter suppression during the Bush administration by Republicans, including a case in New Hampshire that resulted in a guilty plea and prison time for an operative of the Republican National Committee.

Good. I have no stomach for voter fraud from either side.

Really, Tracy? You should study your country's history. The USA is all about taxation without representation. That is how it all started.Freedom of speech is in Amendment number 1. That is what I am referring to.

In 2002, Republican officials in New Hampshire attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by jamming phones....
Ok, I stand corrected. It seems that republicans do attempt to influence elections. I still think it's far more rampant on the democrats side.

I'm glad to hear that. Let's be more specific. Do you therefore support H.R.5175, The DISCLOSE Act, which was introduced in Congress earlier this year? Its official brief description is: "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes."

Yeah, I still say yes, why not?

The Republican leadership argued that the Democrats were trying to "rig the system" to their advantage. How can there be an advantage for any one side in mandating full disclosure in a democracy, unless someone wants to keep something a secret?

I don't understand republicans' problem with this. And I suspect it's probably not a valid concern.

Its obvious the Repubs are against this. They would lose elections. :yes: Why?

TracyCoxx

11-07-2010, 01:33 AM

Could an American answer a question for me please... Why is it that people over there don't like the idea of having a national health service?

Our (UK) NHS service is something we couldn't live without and if the government said we had to pay for everything there would be riots.

Because for one thing we already have a system where people get health insurance through their employers, and 85% of Americans are happy with the way this works.

For another thing, to change the system to a national health service would require everyone's health premiums to go up like $2000/year and the result would be degraded medical service.

And for another thing, our country is deep in debt and cannot afford the national health care system that was enacted.

randolph

11-07-2010, 08:53 AM

TracyCoxx

11-07-2010, 09:05 AM

SMC made the point, the Repubs don't want to reveal the vast amount of corporate secret funding for their campaigns. When the voters realize that most of the funding comes from BP, the chamber of commerce and the likes of the Kock brothers they may decide to vote for someone else.

Ok, so if voters aren't going to vote for republicans when they see this, and they aren't going to vote for democrats when they see how much funding comes from George Soros and Media Matters and MoveOn.org and hollywood, etc, then who will they vote for? Libertarian?

randolph

11-07-2010, 10:26 AM

Ok, so if voters aren't going to vote for republicans when they see this, and they aren't going to vote for democrats when they see how much funding comes from George Soros and Media Matters and MoveOn.org and hollywood, etc, then who will they vote for? Libertarian?

You got it!
We need a third party that represents us, the working middle class.
I am fed up with both parties but I cant take the Tea Party. I understand the outrage of the Tea Party but they are clueless and pawns of the big guys. We need to impeach the Supreme Court Justices that voted for the corporate flooding of money into the election system.
We also need to change the election system so members of congress get elected for only one term of six years and cant run for reelection. This would eliminate a lot of this campaigning crap. If we don't like what they are doing during their six year term, impeach them.
We have to do something or we are going to lose not only our freedom but the ability to make a living.

smc

11-07-2010, 11:42 AM

Ok, I stand corrected. It seems that republicans do attempt to influence elections. I still think it's far more rampant on the democrats side.

What is the basis upon which you "think it's far more rampant" among Democrats? Can you cite actual statistics?

TracyCoxx

11-07-2010, 02:31 PM

What is the basis upon which you "think it's far more rampant" among Democrats? Can you cite actual statistics?

I don't collect statistics and statistics can be made to show either side, but I do know that ACORN got nailed in 14 states in 2008 for voter fraud on the side of the democrats. And I know that liberals think they can get millions of votes if they can just get illegals to become citizens. And they aren't waiting. They're fighting against attempts to verify the citizenship of potential voters so that illegals can squeak through. These two things alone are not isolated incidents. They are on a multi-state scale.

smc

11-07-2010, 02:54 PM

I don't collect statistics and statistics can be made to show either side, but I do know that ACORN got nailed in 14 states in 2008 for voter fraud on the side of the democrats. And I know that liberals think they can get millions of votes if they can just get illegals to become citizens. And they aren't waiting. They're fighting against attempts to verify the citizenship of potential voters so that illegals can squeak through. These two things alone are not isolated incidents. They are on a multi-state scale.

The way in which you write about Democratic-related "voter fraud" -- with such anger and vitriol -- and the way in which you acknowledge Republican-related "voter fraud" when presented with the evidence -- with terse, one-line sentences -- I believe speaks volumes.

The problem of those who are either in power or seek to be in power (Democrats and Republicans alike), and who have enormous financial resources at their disposal that people like you and I, Tracy, do not have, is a threat to whatever vestiges of democracy we may enjoy in this country. It should not matter WHO subverts elections as much as THAT they are subverted. So long as you cannot demonstrate equal anger about both "sides" seeking to take away the power of your one vote through some kind of fraud, it is difficult to see that your objections are not grounded in something more insidious. Why should it matter more that one side may be trying to get immigrants to vote than it matters that another side is trying to ensure that minorities (citizens of this country) don't get to vote?

One of the things that polarizes people in the United States on the left and right is that the 24/7 cycle of vituperative commentary from the left and right uses selective information to skew the debate. You, I believe, have been cheated by some of those commentators, because they made sure you knew that ACORN had been accused of voter fraud in 14 states in 2008, but they made sure not to tell you whatever because of those accusations.

I am no supporter of ACORN, but of truth and civil discourse. Did you know, Tracy, that in June of this year the Government Accounting Office (GAO) -- independent of the Obama administration and of the Republicans -- released a report on these accusations in 14 states?

The GAO report found that, in every one of those cases, complaints filed against ACORN with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) were dismissed. The FEC is also not directly affiliated with the Democratic or Republican parties. The report also showed that four of six FBI investigations into alleged voter fraud committed by ACORN employees were closed due to lack of evidence. The two other investigations were also closed and referred to local and state jurisdictions.

The report detailed five cases in which ACORN employees pled guilty to misdemeanor counts of voter registration fraud, but the GAO stated that these cases did not allege any wrongdoing on behalf of ACORN itself or any affiliated organizations -- only the individuals. Did you know that ACORN, in fact, offered materials to local election officials that helped initiate the prosecution of these guilty individuals, because ACORN felt that they had undermined the proper training ACORN had provided them to register voters legally?

Again, I am not defending ACORN, but seeking the truth and encouraging you to direct your anger where it really NEEDS to be directed -- -- at anyone who usurps your democratic rights.

It is only my opinion, but it seems to me that you would want to get the widest possible hearing for your complaints about the government. Direct you anger appropriately, and recognize who is really at fault (hint: it's the people who own the wealth, not their politician lackeys, who are the real enemy, and those people support both sides to keep you thinking you have a choice), and you'll certainly get my ear for anything you want to say.

randolph

11-07-2010, 02:58 PM

Wall Street campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans. Something happened in October 2009. Health care bill?

TracyCoxx

11-07-2010, 04:24 PM

The problem of those who are either in power or seek to be in power (Democrats and Republicans alike), and who have enormous financial resources at their disposal that people like you and I, Tracy, do not have, is a threat to whatever vestiges of democracy we may enjoy in this country. It should not matter WHO subverts elections as much as THAT they are subverted. So long as you cannot demonstrate equal anger about both "sides" seeking to take away the power of your one vote through some kind of fraud, it is difficult to see that your objections are not grounded in something more insidious.
As I said before, I do not see a problem with corporate backers in elections. They exist on both sides. And what difference does it make? Liberal leaning billionaires and corporations sunk a fortune into this election for NOTHING because what it comes down to is not their money. It comes down to the voters. They are the ones who go into the voting booth and cast their vote, not the evil corporations.

When the liberals tamper with the voters, THAT's where I have a problem. When you're bringing in illegal aliens, that's tampering with the voter. When you're signing up voters to vote multiple times, that's tampering with the voter. When you're filling out default liberal votes, that's tampering with the voter.

Why should it matter more that one side may be trying to get immigrants to vote than it matters that another side is trying to ensure that minorities (citizens of this country) don't get to vote?Give these poor minorities a little credit. If they wanted to vote, no one is stopping them.

One of the things that polarizes people in the United States on the left and right is that the 24/7 cycle of vituperative commentary from the left and right uses selective information to skew the debate. You, I believe, have been cheated by some of those commentators, because they made sure you knew that ACORN had been accused of voter fraud in 14 states in 2008, but they made sure not to tell you whatever because of those accusations.I know CNN is biased. And I also know Fox News is biased. I used to watch CNN exclusively. But then when I started to wake up to the liberal lies I started getting my news from several sources. And I noticed more and more that liberal news sources just out and out lie more than anything else I've seen. So pardon me if I don't get my news from there. I think I've had a pretty good track record of telling it like it is, and predicting where things were going on the Obama thread so my news sources are probably not all that bad.

The GAO report found that, in every one of those cases, complaints filed against ACORN with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) were dismissed.And why is that? Certainly some pretty damning evidence has been shown so there better be a good reason. I'll look into this when I get some time, but right now I have a computer to rebuild.

TracyCoxx

11-07-2010, 04:25 PM

Wall Street campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans. Something happened in October 2009. Health care bill?

How odd... it's exactly inverted.

smc

11-07-2010, 07:17 PM

You can't have it both ways, Tracy. You can't admit there is voter suppression by both sides and then claim that the side you don't like can vote if they want to, no matter what might be done to keep that from happening. That's hypocrisy. And it's also hypocritical to state that adding votes to the mix that are or may be cast illegally is a problem that subverts elections, while implying by omission -- as you do again and again -- that subtracting potential votes does not subvert elections. If someone keeps a voter from voting, and someone else brings a voter to the polls and makes it possible for that person to vote even though not eligible, is that not the same subversion of your vote and how it counts.

Unless you can state unequivocally that anything that subverts elections, be it illegal voters or voter suppression or advertisements that lie but have no traceability as to who funded them, etc., etc. etc. -- then your argument is fallacious. And after many attempts, there is no value in challenging a fallacious argument. It is a waste of time.

I will continue to hold out hope that your interest is in truth and constructive discourse. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not one's own facts.

ts_addict

11-07-2010, 07:31 PM

You do pay for everything. It's just that you pay for it indirectly through your taxes.

I know, but say if you needed life saving drugs which are very expensive you wouldn't be able to get them would you? The NHS also gives us piece of mind as you know that no matter what (pretty much), you will get treated. Even people that are only here on holiday get treated for free iirc. Everyone is treated the same and has the access to drugs they may need.

Because for one thing we already have a system where people get health insurance through their employers, and 85% of Americans are happy with the way this works.

For another thing, to change the system to a national health service would require everyone's health premiums to go up like $2000/year and the result would be degraded medical service.

And for another thing, our country is deep in debt and cannot afford the national health care system that was enacted.

I understand that, but if there was a shake-up of the rules it would be a lot fairer for everyone and there wouldn't be huge corporations trying to profit off someone's illness. Which I think is disgusting.

I often wonder how the american public let these corporations do what they do. They must spend so much money on propaganda.

---

Thanks for the replies :)

TracyCoxx

11-08-2010, 08:51 AM

You can't have it both ways, Tracy. You can't admit there is voter suppression by both sides and then claim that the side you don't like can vote if they want to
I did not say the voters in New Hampshire were suppressed. Are you saying they were not able to vote?

And it's also hypocritical to state that adding votes to the mix that are or may be cast illegally is a problem that subverts elections, while implying by omission -- as you do again and again -- that subtracting potential votes does not subvert elections. If someone keeps a voter from voting, and someone else brings a voter to the polls and makes it possible for that person to vote even though not eligible, is that not the same subversion of your vote and how it counts.Ah I see the problem. You somehow have the idea that there is a block of people who need to be escorted by a political party to the voting booth. I sometimes forget that people have these odd ideas. No that is not part of our right to vote. America assumes that if the people have the responsibility for putting our leaders in office that they can get off their lazy ass and put a check for a party or candidate. And if they are not able to make it there then they call whoever it is that gets their groceries and asks for a ride. The republicans in New Hampshire were not blocking anyone from going out and voting.

Unless you can state unequivocally that anything that subverts elections, be it illegal voters or voter suppression or advertisements that lie but have no traceability as to who funded them, etc., etc. etc. -- then your argument is fallacious. And after many attempts, there is no value in challenging a fallacious argument. It is a waste of time.While I have said before I do not support untraceable false advertisements or funds I believe they are canceled out by liberal media bias and lies and equally massive funding on the left which indirectly influence election results. And I'm sticking to my story that elections come down to the voter. You screw with the voter and you're directly tampering with election results.

TracyCoxx

11-08-2010, 09:12 AM

I understand that, but if there was a shake-up of the rules it would be a lot fairer for everyone and there wouldn't be huge corporations trying to profit off someone's illness. Which I think is disgusting.

A huge corporation is not a synonym for evil. Corporations and small businesses are what drives our economy. Yes insurance companies make a profit, but so do doctors. They make a profit because someone has to manage the system that makes it possible for people to get medical treatment, and that someone provides a service. Is it disgusting that car mechanics make a profit off of other people's misfortunes? People are paid for the services they provide. If it was managed by the government then there would be no competition to keep prices low and to keep wasted spending to a manageable level. And again... we are maxed out in debt and cannot afford it. (Why does no one see that last sentence? Why is it completely irrelevant that there is a mountain of debt and all people can think of is what else to add to it?)

One way or another, whether it's through insurance premiums or taxes, people pay for medical treatment. Either insurance companies (aka evil corporations) receive a profit for getting you the medical treatment you need or a large portion of what you're paying through taxes is wasted on a one-size fits all government solution.

smc

11-08-2010, 09:34 AM

I did not say the voters in New Hampshire were suppressed. Are you saying they were not able to vote?

Ah I see the problem. You somehow have the idea that there is a block of people who need to be escorted by a political party to the voting booth. I sometimes forget that people have these odd ideas. No that is not part of our right to vote. America assumes that if the people have the responsibility for putting our leaders in office that they can get off their lazy ass and put a check for a party or candidate. And if they are not able to make it there then they call whoever it is that gets their groceries and asks for a ride. The republicans in New Hampshire were not blocking anyone from going out and voting.

If you cannot see the equivalency between standing at the polling place and physically blocking the door and using some other means to, say, keep an elderly person from accessing the ride to the polling place that both parties offer on election day, then you have a serious blind spot.

The logical extension of your argument is that elderly people who are the victims of fraud over the telephone by those who convince them to share their personal information or to send them huge amounts of money -- a type of fraud that is a massive problem in the United States -- should simply have known better, and nothing should be done.

And I'm sticking to my story that elections come down to the voter. You screw with the voter and you're directly tampering with election results.

Right. If someone figures out a clever, indirect, less visible way to suppress the voter, that someone is rewarded. How? Because people like you, by your own admission, decide to focus all your anger on the less clever.

In any case, our discussion is over, not because we can't agree, and not because the discourse isn't important, but because you seem too filled with anger and vitriol to have a meaningful dialogue. If it matters, I'll even let you say you scored all the points, even though I haven't been playing a game.

Ain't democracy wonderful? Let's enjoy it while it lasts. The people who take it away from us are going to be the ones who capitalize on the unwillingness of people to step back, take a deep breath, and really explore what is going on, rather than simply reacting to "facts" that are fed to them to serve a devious purpose. And again, as I've written time and again, that feeding comes from both wings of the rulers, equally.

randolph

11-08-2010, 09:39 AM

From Michael Collins at "the money party.com"

Here are the facts.

There is just one political party in the United States, The Money Party. There?s the Republican wing, we?ll call them the ?crazies?, and the Democratic wing, now known as ?the sleepwalkers.? They all work for the same paymasters, the financial elite who thrive on bubbles, scams, and endless war. If you don?t start from that assumption, you haven?t been paying attention.

Why would Obama listen to you or any other ?liberal? blogger. First, he?d think that you?re less than serious for assuming that he?d ever listen. There?s a greater chance that pigs will fly than any politician listening who rises up through this money drenched system. In case you have not noticed, nobody gets to be president unless they?re in the bag of big money.

Obama has continued bailouts, war, and the civil rights violations of the Bush administration. Those are his principles. Isn?t that a hint that he doesn?t care what liberal bloggers think? The president has even added a new wrinkle ? targeting U.S. citizens for assassination once he?s proclaimed them a ?terrorist.? Any 8th grader studying the Constitution knows that this is illegal. This reflects his principles ? selective death sentences for citizens without an arrest or trial. Talk about the tyrannical model of leadership.

Obama?s cabinet choices and other appointments showed his principles ? Summers, Geithner, industry flacks running regulatory agencies. His principles showed when he gave Wall Street a big bonus for screwing up the economy and driving the people down. His principles showed when he committed the nation to another quagmire.

He did a bait-and-switch. That?s why the Democrats lost the election. The people know a hustle when they see it. They know they?re in trouble. They know Obama and Company could care less along with the spineless Democrats who promised change and delivered nothing.

I hate to admit it but much of this seems to be true.:censored:

randolph

11-08-2010, 10:17 AM

A major factor in the rout of the Democrats was the senior vote. Seniors are very concerned about Medicare. Also many of the young voters stayed home in disgust.

Enoch Root

11-08-2010, 12:59 PM

A huge corporation is not a synonym for evil. Corporations and small businesses are what drives our economy. Yes insurance companies make a profit, but so do doctors. They make a profit because someone has to manage the system that makes it possible for people to get medical treatment, and that someone provides a service. Is it disgusting that car mechanics make a profit off of other people's misfortunes? People are paid for the services they provide. If it was managed by the government then there would be no competition to keep prices low and to keep wasted spending to a manageable level. And again... we are maxed out in debt and cannot afford it. (Why does no one see that last sentence? Why is it completely irrelevant that there is a mountain of debt and all people can think of is what else to add to it?)

Life/health and a busted car are hardly equal.

The Conquistador

11-08-2010, 04:18 PM

Life/health and a busted car are hardly equal.

The principle is still the same though.

tslust

11-08-2010, 05:07 PM

Could an American answer a question for me please... Why is it that people over there don't like the idea of having a national health service?

For me, it's a matter of having the freedom to decide for myself. In other words, I don't want some self-appointed genius in D.C. telling me that I have to get insurance even if I don't need it. I get my insurance through my job, thank you very much.

TracyCoxx

11-08-2010, 11:36 PM

Life/health and a busted car are hardly equal.

You're right. I'd rather have a sinus infection than a cracked engine block. Yes some medical problems are more serious, but many are not.

Enoch Root

11-09-2010, 08:48 AM

You're right. I'd rather have a sinus infection than a cracked engine block. Yes some medical problems are more serious, but many are not.

@AngryPostman: It is hardly the same principle. That is exactly what my comment was meant to demonstrate. That is to say: there is no real misery when a hunk of metal with wheels you use to move around breaks down. If, however, your wife or boyfriend or friend becomes sickly, dangerously so, there is misery. We shouldn't profit from misery. It reminds me of funeral parlors goading patrons into buying extravagant coffins and who knows what else for their dead family, using the heightened emotions of the patrons against them.

Tracy: healthcare is about whatever serious health problems you may develop, not about something as easily dealt with as a sinus infection. You make light of health problems. Why? So as to avoid the matter of profiting from misery?

smc

11-09-2010, 09:52 AM

I get my insurance through my job, thank you very much.

Well, aren't you the lucky one. Not everyone has such good fortune. But of course, this is America -- the one highly developed nation in the world where "social solidarity" is not just nearly non-existent, but where its opposite is taught to you from your first days in school. So, while we are all foolishly chasing the false "American dream" we've been taught about, and believing that the only righteous thing is to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," the rest of the developed world is surpassing the United States in every single category of social good, from literacy rates to birth rates to public transportation to educational achievement in math and science to ... the list is too endless for this site.

That crap we Americans were taught in school about individualism and making your own way and so on -- that serves a political and, more important, an economic purpose for those with the financial means -- in this country these days, typically acquired through economic activity that serves absolutely no productive purpose -- so that they never have to worry about paying for healthcare or relying on public transit or going to a decent public school or ... well, again, the list is too endless for this site.

When I was in Paris once, I came upon a group of about 30 people protesting outside a neighborhood daycare center early one morning. The government was discussing cutting back the funding for the creche. I spoke with nearly everyone there, and I could find only 5 people who had kids in the daycare center. All the rest were there because they realized that everyone in France benefited from public-funded daycare, and that their neighbors -- and hence their neighborhood -- was enriched by the fact that the daycare center made it possible for some people to work where they might not otherwise be able to keep a job. When the saw the possibility of that benefit disappearing for a few, they realized that it would hurt them all.

randolph

11-09-2010, 10:25 AM

Very well said SMC, humanity is in short supply in the good old USA. The conservatives are under the delusion that we can have a great country consisting of a few rich people and the rest working for them. Its not unlike the South before the Civil War. One of these days we will wake up, I hope it will not be too late.

TracyCoxx

11-09-2010, 10:32 AM

Well, aren't you the lucky one. Not everyone has such good fortune. But of course, this is America -- the one highly developed nation in the world where "social solidarity" is not just nearly non-existent, but where its opposite is taught to you from your first days in school.
Exactly. Theoretically this country is supposed to grant individual liberties. It's an experiment in government so at least there's one place on Earth you can go if individual liberty is what you seek. It's not for everyone so don't feel bad if it's not for you. If people are in a country that goes against their nature they hopefully can immigrate to another country. That's why immigrants come here. There are many other countries where you can work to support your fellow citizens or mooch off the work of others. btw... lower taxes on businesses and they will hire more people. Then more people get health insurance.

So, while we are all foolishly chasing the false "American dream" we've been taught about, and believing that the only righteous thing is to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," the rest of the developed world is surpassing the United States in every single category of social good, from literacy rates to birth rates to public transportation to educational achievement in math and science to ... the list is too endless for this site.Thank America's religious fundamentalists for some of that. As for the high birth rates, no thank you. Who needs over population?

That crap we Americans were taught in school about individualism and making your own way and so on -- that serves... to make our people self sufficient and masters of their own destinies.

When I was in Paris once, I came upon a group of about 30 people protesting outside a neighborhood daycare center early one morning. The government was discussing cutting back the funding for the creche. I spoke with nearly everyone there, and I could find only 5 people who had kids in the daycare center. All the rest were there because they realized that everyone in France benefited from public-funded daycare, and that their neighbors -- and hence their neighborhood -- was enriched by the fact that the daycare center made it possible for some people to work where they might not otherwise be able to keep a job. When the saw the possibility of that benefit disappearing for a few, they realized that it would hurt them all.
Good example. Once you make people feel they're entitled to something you can't get rid of it. It becomes yet another expense that the government pays and burdens the population with through taxes, whether they have kids or not. The end result? A bloated out of control welfare state.

smc

11-09-2010, 10:44 AM

Good example. Once you make people feel they're entitled to something you can't get rid of it. It becomes yet another expense that the government pays and burdens the population with through taxes, whether they have kids or not. The end result? A bloated out of control welfare state.

I forgot to mention one other thing. The United States has the lowest percentage of citizens with passports of any developed country. Most Americans have never been outside of North America. I don't know about you, Tracy -- perhaps that doesn't apply in your case. But the point in general is that Americans presume to know how people in other countries feel, as you reveal in your response.

These people in France didn't feel burdened by taxes. People throughout Europe gladly pay for the social welfare systems they have. Denmark has enormously high taxes and, by nearly every scientific study, the most content and happy people in the developed world. Why? Because they enjoy lives absent from most of the financial stressors that make Americans unhappy (such as having to worry about paying for healthcare, or college, or whatever). The happiness of everyone around them turns into a generalized societal happiness.

No one in France I've ever spoken to thinks of things as "entitlements" the way you use the word. They think of what we call "entitlements" in the United States as willing purchases they and their society have made for the good of all. That's why they protest so vehemently against changes in the social welfare system pushed by the wealthy. It's because they realize that the "individual liberty" that so many in America think Americans possess can be a catchphrase for something quite insidious.

Enoch Root

11-09-2010, 12:26 PM

I see the way language plays here. Entitlement is a bad word, full of negative connotations. It draws the image of an unruly child holding his parents to the fire for something he doesn’t need yet keeps demanding. But the same could not be said of something like healtchcare. This is something people need. And if sacrifices must be made to give the people something as vital as that, then why not? This is not insidious. It is a matter of compassion for the fellow man.

Language. Politicians have a way of screwing with it, people will not necessarily notice. For example, I was watching the news the other day and a pundit tried to rebut something someone else said by calling what the man proposed “class warfare.” They were speaking of raising taxes on the wealthy. This, as anyone can see with enough time, is spin. It is using, manipulating, language. It poisons the well because of its violent tones. Yet the rich get richer and the poor get poorer—and I will not apologize for using such a clich?d sentence, for it is true and gets the point across. If anyone is waging “warfare” it is not the poor or the middle class waging war on the rich, but the other way around. It is a case of the victimizers making themselves out to be victims. It reminds me of opponents of same-sex marriage and all that good stuff claiming that same-sex couples do not deserve marriage because they are asking for “special” rights. When it is, in fact, the opponents who are obliquely asking for special rights since they wish for the ability to get married to be cordoned off only for heterosexual couples. In both cases those who claim “class warfare” is being waged against the rich or that same-sex couples are asking for “special” rights are manipulating language.

I remember wanting to tear at my scalp whenever I heard McCain spout his nonsense about “pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.” Tracy, you were born, fed and bred in a country that has no sense of community. No sense of solidarity. It is every man for himself. The cowboy is a national symbol! But no one can live by oneself. No man is an island. It is an illusion. Are we individuals? Yes. But being an individual is not about “me, me, me, me.” It is about growing. It is about knowing oneself. And from there, knowing others and loving others and caring for others. In your country, growing emotionally and intellectually and expressing that love is too often cause for discomfort. I know this. I lived in the United States for five years and learned this lesson quite well. And I was hurt over and again because I knew I could not truly be myself with most of the populace. I had to live, so to speak, in the closet.

You live in tiny rooms, in insulated houses, in suburbs, where no one knows your name. Rather than in the light, outside, amongst friends and family on whom to depend and whom to love. To depend is not a bad thing. We need other people and we need help. It is the human condition. But in your country, to depend on anything is seen as a bad thing. And the powers that be depend on you thinking so, so that, as SMC put it, they never have to contribute. So that they never have to sacrifice. Living instead off us to an extent, in total disregard of everyone the rest of the time. The idea that they should never sacrifice or that they do no wrong, that they are the economic engine of your country and therefore deserve all they make, is an idea better left to disappear into the wind. A fiction, and quite a fiction it is. I do not like the near-reverent tones of many people when they speak of “the free market.” They sound like proselytizers. The invisible hand of the free market… Much like a god behind all, an invisible arbiter.

I do not know your background Tracy. But I cannot help thinking that you were well taken care of when you were younger. That your parents had the means for ___ (whatever means those were for whatever you needed). Yet that is not the case for everyone. It is easy to say things like “pulling by one’s bootstraps” when you do have bootstraps and they are fine leather or some other material whose integrity has not been compromised. It is another when you are poor and live in a terrible neighborhood. It is not so easy to move up socially. It can take generations, when it could be made to much easier. Why shouldn’t we have such things as national healthcare where all are covered, and people need not worry about how to pay for college, and instead need only prepare the boxes and the car and send your child off to study? We shouldn’t have to drown ourselves in debt for these things and then get drowned in grief and depression over what that debt could do to us. These things should be our birthright—never to be taken for granted, always fought for, always to be cherished.

Often when I hear opposition to such things as a system where all are given healthcare or supplying higher education, it does not seem to truly be about financial concerns, but about disregard for anyone other than oneself. Is this the case with you? Or could I rest easy knowing it is not so? You say that now is not the time for something like healthcare reform—yet when will it be the time? I read such a thing from you and I cannot help thinking that it is but a stalling tactic, much as others have done for a decade now concerning allowing homosexuals into the army. Now is not the time, yet when there is relative peace there is still opposition. When will it be the time?

The Conquistador

11-09-2010, 12:36 PM

@AngryPostman: It is hardly the same principle. That is exactly what my comment was meant to demonstrate. That is to say: there is no real misery when a hunk of metal with wheels you use to move around breaks down. If, however, your wife or boyfriend or friend becomes sickly, dangerously so, there is misery. We shouldn't profit from misery. It reminds me of funeral parlors goading patrons into buying extravagant coffins and who knows what else for their dead family, using the heightened emotions of the patrons against them.

Actually, the principle is the same. The examples are different but the action of buying a product from someone selling something is the same. The products may have different uses but you buying the services from an auto mechanic and you buying the services from an insurance company does not change the fact that you bought something from someone. Appealing to emotion does not change the the principle of the action.

The Conquistador

11-09-2010, 12:39 PM

TracyCoxx

11-09-2010, 01:25 PM

These people in France didn't feel burdened by taxes. People throughout Europe gladly pay for the social welfare systems they have. Denmark has enormously high taxes and, by nearly every scientific study, the most content and happy people in the developed world. Why? Because they enjoy lives absent from most of the financial stressors that make Americans unhappy (such as having to worry about paying for healthcare, or college, or whatever). The happiness of everyone around them turns into a generalized societal happiness.

No one in France I've ever spoken to thinks of things as "entitlements" the way you use the word. They think of what we call "entitlements" in the United States as willing purchases they and their society have made for the good of all. That's why they protest so vehemently against changes in the social welfare system pushed by the wealthy. It's because they realize that the "individual liberty" that so many in America think Americans possess can be a catchphrase for something quite insidious.

There are a wide spectrum of people. Some like to live completely alone with no one telling them what to do, and they hunt their own food etc. They are perfectly happy like that. At the other end of the spectrum are the French. Like I said, individual freedom isn't for everyone. May everyone find the country that is suited for them.

smc

11-09-2010, 01:55 PM

Huzzah! The Feds should only be involved in national defense and the wellbeing of the country as it was originally intended. And I quote Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

There are only 17 things that the fed has power over, which is mainly dealing with national defense and some regulation of our currency.

There are a wide spectrum of people. Some like to live completely alone with no one telling them what to do, and they hunt their own food etc. They are perfectly happy like that. At the other end of the spectrum are the French. Like I said, individual freedom isn't for everyone. May everyone find the country that is suited for them.

I have a straightforward question for you, Tracy, and for The Angry Postman. It is a question posed often to politicians who seem to share some of your views, or at least express some similar views. They usually answer "entitlements," although what falls into that category (as generally defined), combined with nearly everyting else outside of the Defense Department, accounts for less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...

randolph

11-09-2010, 02:01 PM

There are a wide spectrum of people. Some like to live completely alone with no one telling them what to do, and they hunt their own food etc. They are perfectly happy like that. At the other end of the spectrum are the French. Like I said, individual freedom isn't for everyone. May everyone find the country that is suited for them.

Hey, comone Tracy, the French have great vacations, free speech, great food, beautiful country, the right to protest and are as free as anyone else. The idea of the independent "pioneer" Daniel Boon type was a myth from the very beginning. This country was developed by cooperation. The pioneers helped each other, barn raising, for example. The smart ass guys that thought they could go it alone (bank robbers, train robbers, cattle rustlers) ended up hanging from the nearest tree.

The Conquistador

11-09-2010, 02:14 PM

I have a straightforward question for you, Tracy, and for The Angry Postman. It is a question posed often to politicians who seem to share some of your views, or at least express some similar views. They usually answer "entitlements," although what falls into that category (as generally defined), combined with nearly everyting else outside of the Defense Department, accounts for less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...

I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.

GRH

11-09-2010, 03:26 PM

Life/health and a busted car are hardly equal.

The principle is still the same though.

Yes, these are essentially the same thing. Because in America, there is no more a fundamental right to transportation than there is a fundamental right to health care. If your car breaks down and you don't have the money to fix it...You're up shits creek without a paddle. If you have a life-threatening illness and don't have the money/insurance to pay for treatment...You are also out of luck.

And since health care reform is SOOOO expensive, need I remind everyone that America has the highest per capita cost of healthcare of ANY nation in the world, and for far worse outcomes. The statistics would suggest that a single-payer system would actually be far cheaper than the "for profit" model of insurance that we currently have. By removing administrative overlap of multiple insurers, not to mention the egregious CEO salaries, and the billions of dollars of dividends that are paid to shareholders...And you take BILLIONS of dollars out of health care cost. Yes, you "pay" a wage to a doctor for his services. And yes, the doctor must "profit" enough from his procedures to pay his secretary, his staff, and his overhead. But a doctor need not "profit" so much as to make millions of dollars of salary (like a corporate CEO) nor to pay dividends (as corporations do).

I find it funny to hear people say that we can't afford health care reform. Personally, I think we can't afford NOT to reform health care. The current bill was far from perfect, and lacked a lot of cost-containment measures. But according to the only record keeper that really matters (the non-partisan CBO), the current effort at health care reform actually shaves roughly $138 billion from the deficit over ten years.

It's also highly disingenous to suggest that "85% of people are happy with their insurance." It's more appropriate to say that a large percentage of people don't want to have to sacrifice their quality of care for a substandard type of care. Nevermind that many people with insurance are underinsured. MANY people who called for health care reform believe that the legislation did not go far enough...Far more than 15% that Tracy would suggest. Because the fact of the matter is, not EVERYONE in this country believes that a broken down car and life-threatening illness should be the same thing. Some of us believe that health care should be a right.

GRH

11-09-2010, 03:41 PM

I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.

This "states' rights" argument is rather stale coming from more libertarian-leaning people. It's a very shallow fall-back phrase that they like to use...But the truth of the matter is, libertarians have no more use for "states' rights" than they have use for the "federal government." I've found that people that espouse "states' rights" are really just anti-government at heart. Don't let them fool you.

I've never heard of a convincing argument for the libertarian's diet though. I mean, surely libertarians object to the federal beauracracy which inspects meat, vegetables, and food products for safety. I suppose they'd rather live somewhere like China where such inspections rarely if ever happen. Contaminants regularly work their way into the Chinese food supply. And then we get to see the "free market" work it's magic. Thousands of people get sick, and perhaps thousands die. Then the benevolent "free market" punishes the businesses which were lax in their regulation. But it takes THOUSANDS of people getting sick for action to take place. I don't know about you, but me...I prefer a diet where we try to catch instances of contamination BEFORE thousands of people have to get sick and die. But I'm sure libertarians would prefer less intrusion into their diet. I'm sure libertarians wouldn't mind if it was their child that died from melanine-tainted milk...Afterall, principles before personal attachments. Their child's death would be one of the cogs in the pseudo-magical "free market."

I guess some libertarians would prefer a "states' rights" approach. I guess they'd settle for a disparate patchwork of regulation that differs between all 50 states. So some states may have safer food than others. Me...I'm glad for the federal standards. I'm glad that our Supreme Court hasn't so narrowly interpretted the Constitution to limit the federal government to 17 duties. Because quite frankly...The libertarian diet sucks.

For that matter, much of the libertarian worldview sucks...A world where there is no safety net...Where the starving are literally left to die in the streets. Of course, without welfare, some of these same libertarians couldn't complain when the peasants rise out of their shackles and take by force what the rich hoarde to themselves. Afterall, the government has no business protecting people's wealth either. It's a harsh, dog-eat-dog world.

GRH

11-09-2010, 03:47 PM

I'm always very curious to engage conservatives in conversations about what they value. I mean, supposedly they value low taxes but also value fiscal accountability. The two don't really go hand-in-hand.

Republicans say they want to roll back discretionary spending...Great! That only accounts for roughly 15% of all federal spending.

Republicans say they don't want to cut defense spending, even though it has been our involvement in two wars which has contributed greatly to our deficit.

And Republicans say they want to make permanent the Bush tax cuts...Even though these same tax cuts make up 55% of our deficit.

Sounds to me like they want to have their cake and eat it too. I mean, I don't see it being fiscally responsible to make tax cuts part of your policy, when those same tax cuts are responsible for the vast majority of the deficit. Can someone explain this mystery to me?

smc

11-09-2010, 04:26 PM

The Conquistador

11-09-2010, 07:34 PM

Some of us believe that health care should be a right.

Why is healthcare a right? Shouldn't it be the right of a person to eat healthy and stay fit? Aside from the odd freak accident, alot of health problems can be averted by simple oversight of ones habits. You have the ability to exercise and you have the ability to stuff your face with twinkies until you become a bloated lard with diabeetus and numerous other health problems. If you choose one, you will have to deal with the consequences regardless of the outcome, whether it is good or bad. All these social welfare programs do is absolve those who make bad descisions of their personal responsibilities and pass the buck onto someone else.

I don't know about you but I don't like having money pulled from my paycheck to fund some lazy EBT using asshole and their horrible eating habits just so they can eat themselves into a hospital bed and/or a casket. I should not be responsible for someones well being unless I choose to do so.

tslust

11-09-2010, 07:40 PM

The Conquistador

11-09-2010, 07:55 PM

This "states' rights" argument is rather stale coming from more libertarian-leaning people. It's a very shallow fall-back phrase that they like to use...But the truth of the matter is, libertarians have no more use for "states' rights" than they have use for the "federal government." I've found that people that espouse "states' rights" are really just anti-government at heart. Don't let them fool you.

I've never heard of a convincing argument for the libertarian's diet though. I mean, surely libertarians object to the federal beauracracy which inspects meat, vegetables, and food products for safety. I suppose they'd rather live somewhere like China where such inspections rarely if ever happen. Contaminants regularly work their way into the Chinese food supply. And then we get to see the "free market" work it's magic. Thousands of people get sick, and perhaps thousands die. Then the benevolent "free market" punishes the businesses which were lax in their regulation. But it takes THOUSANDS of people getting sick for action to take place. I don't know about you, but me...I prefer a diet where we try to catch instances of contamination BEFORE thousands of people have to get sick and die. But I'm sure libertarians would prefer less intrusion into their diet. I'm sure libertarians wouldn't mind if it was their child that died from melanine-tainted milk...Afterall, principles before personal attachments. Their child's death would be one of the cogs in the pseudo-magical "free market."

I guess some libertarians would prefer a "states' rights" approach. I guess they'd settle for a disparate patchwork of regulation that differs between all 50 states. So some states may have safer food than others. Me...I'm glad for the federal standards. I'm glad that our Supreme Court hasn't so narrowly interpretted the Constitution to limit the federal government to 17 duties. Because quite frankly...The libertarian diet sucks.

For that matter, much of the libertarian worldview sucks...A world where there is no safety net...Where the starving are literally left to die in the streets. Of course, without welfare, some of these same libertarians couldn't complain when the peasants rise out of their shackles and take by force what the rich hoarde to themselves. Afterall, the government has no business protecting people's wealth either. It's a harsh, dog-eat-dog world.

Bad products are bad for business. The "exploding" gas tank on a Ford Pinto is a good example as well as Olestra potato chips. I am not against some gov. regulations; I am against overly stict regulations that stifle productivity in order to make someone feel good. Your Robin Hood-esque attitude of "Steal from the rich to give from the poor" overlooks the fact that Robin Hood was reclaiming money stolen from the people through taxes and other less than reputable means by the existing government entity at the time i.e. Prince John (The Monarchy) and the Sheriff of Nottingham (The Local Law Enforcement and Military Body).

You are correct that many libertarians are anti-government. Governments always become despotic and oppressive and will use every tool in the book to expand their power including appealing to the "working man" to get their way. Lenin and his Bullshitvik party along with the thought process of Karl Marx appealed to the "working man" to gain control, even though they were a bunch of acedemic buddy fuckers who had never done a days work in their life and look how having a government that provided everything a person needed worked out for them.

I am for limited government GRH, not living in China. Do not confuse the two.

Every bad precedent started out as a justifiable measure

The Conquistador

11-09-2010, 08:05 PM

How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a "united states" at all?

If you're so against Social Security, are you going to collect when you retire? Sure, the government has been extracting some money out of your paycheck to cover your later draw, but on a principled basis shouldn't you refuse the payback?

Not all states have restrictive regulations. There is variety amongst states; if you don't like how one state does business, move to another one. It's the same reason why we have multiple business chains and shops rather than one monolithic WalMart. Freedom of choice. You can't really do that on a country level when few countries offer the amount of freedoms that we do and the only country that does becomes more oppressive every day.

I will not collect Social Security when I retire. I am 24 right now and by the time I am eligible to collect, there will be no more Social Security funds to draw from. Anyone who thinks about it will realize that Social Security is a massize ponzi scheme and if anyone has been paying attention to the news as of late will know that they are already denying people their SS payments because there is not enough money to keep it funded. Good luck gettin yours. If I didn't have my money taken away from me by the fed, I wouldn't have to even worry about getting back what I put in. I can fare better if I had the money that is deducted from my pay and put into Social Security put into a Roth IRA instead.

http://arthurshall.com/x_social_security.shtml
http://arthurshall.com/x_2010_social_security.shtml

BAN SOCIAL SECURITY

This article is titled "Ban Social Security" and the basic premise is of course that Social Security is the biggest rip off in the history of the world. If you think this is an overstatement, shut up and read on. The first thing we need to look at is the history of this ill-conceived program. This program was designed during the FDR (I won't refer to this communist by name) administration and that is strike one against it. The rational given to the people was it would secure a decent life for seniors but in reality it was a money grab by the administration after the precipitous decline in tax revenues as a result of the Great Depression. They told everyone "Hey give us part of your income and if you are lucky enough to live to 60 (at the time, by no means a given) we will give a measly check every month"!!! Wow, what a fucked-up, cynical system! This concept is nothing but creative wealth redistribution, which of course is every liberal's panacea. FDR was the great Robin Hood of the 20th century and he is celebrated by idiots everywhere. I hate FDR, his ideas and programs created a mushroom cloud of entitlements that threaten to cause a Chernobyl-like meltdown of our economic system.

Now, I feel like I have to give you economically challenged yokels out there a explanation of how this shit works. They take 6.2% of your income and they force your employer (McDonald's or Walmart in your case) to match that contribution. So if you look at it, those fuckers take 12.4% of your income every God damn week. Now I am going to do a calculation for you, I am sure you will not understand it but read it anyway! Now if you make $50,000 per year that means that $6200 of your hard earned dollars go into this program per year. Let's assume we were given $5000 of it and your employer kept $1200 of it to invest in the business to improve operations, hire more workers, or redistribute to shareholders (Hey, liberals… business owners create jobs! Imagine that!! Another bit of Viking wisdom for you). Next lets do some simple math, if you are 25 years old and you invested it at a 5% return (which is far below the median market return over the last 100 years) you would have a yearly income of $160,000 per year after age 65!! Now of course, we have to adjust that for inflation with the assumed rate of 3% you would have roughly $55,000 year. So in other words, by not doing anything but taking back the money that the government stole from you and doing it yourself, you could guarantee a comparable standard of living to what you enjoy now. FUCKING AMAZING!! Now if you were to actually do something extra, 401(k) for instance, your standard of living could actually improve after age 65, something that the modern SSN system is utterly incapable of doing.

I am not writing this to say that the current proposal from the Bush administration is much better than the current system. It is better but it is a stop-gap and does not fix the main issue. The main issue is that our population is aging and soon the money just flat won't be there to cover the payments. One fix for this is for you weak-minded, limp-wristed, testosterone-lacking metrosexuals to actually man up and have kids. We know this won't happen because the same groups (Dumbocrats, they are always fucking things up!) that oppose scrapping SSN are the same groups that advocate abortions for anyone and everyone. That, in combination, with your miniscule sperm count from the infusion of estrogen that you seem to thrive on is the death blow for the correct demographics for this Robin Hood system to continue to function. The only other solution to this issue is to kill the entire program. I can hear the cries from the peanut gallery already "What if the people don't invest the money and they don't have anything when they are old?" or "Who takes care of the poor people that did not do the right thing?” Well, I have a simple retort to that. FUCK EM!! If you are too stupid to take care of yourself and you think that the government should take care of you, guess what we have for you? A one way ticket to North Korea and you can see, first hand, what a government controlled system looks like. If you allow your friends and family to take that extra money and buy more Doritos with it then you deserve to pay when they need insulin to treat their self-induced diabetes. I have a fear that if we give these idiots more money they will buy more DVD's, frozen food and just generally waste all the money. Actually, that is not a fear, I own stock in all companies that take advantage of stupid people and when they are broke, fat and alone I won't be paying thousands of dollars a year to subsidize their self-destructive habits and my dividend checks will grow!! Wow that is great. The moral of the story is that we do not need Social Security and the sooner these bastards in Washington figure it out, the better of we all will be!!! Oh yeah, burn in hell FDR!!!

TracyCoxx

11-09-2010, 10:47 PM

Tracy: healthcare is about whatever serious health problems you may develop, not about something as easily dealt with as a sinus infection. You make light of health problems. Why? So as to avoid the matter of profiting from misery?

I didn't say they were all minor, just a lot of health issues are. For the health issues that are minor like a sinus infection and less of a pain to deal with than repairing your car, is it ok in your mind for insurance companies to profit from getting your doctor paid?

TracyCoxx

11-09-2010, 11:46 PM

This is something people need. And if sacrifices must be made to give the people something as vital as that, then why not? This is not insidious. It is a matter of compassion for the fellow man.What if the fellow man smokes and eats donuts for breakfast, a #6 supersized at McDonalds, snacks on candy in the afternoon, has fried chicken for dinner and rounds it off with ice cream every evening? Do my taxes pay for his triple heart bypass surgery?

Tracy, you were born, fed and bred in a country that has no sense of community. No sense of solidarity. It is every man for himself. The cowboy is a national symbol! But no one can live by oneself.Who are you to say that no one can live by their self? It's not your cup of tea, but it might be someone else's.

I do not know your background Tracy. But I cannot help thinking that you were well taken care of when you were younger. That your parents had the means for ___ (whatever means those were for whatever you needed).
My family was lower middle class. My parents didn't go to college. I worked through college and paid half my expenses for my bachelors and paid all my expenses for my masters. When I graduated I had no loans. The fact that I worked to pay for college was looked at by my employer as positive and showed that I had initiative. It also was looked at as valuable experience for the job. I now have 2 masters degrees and am in the upper middle class and support a family of 5 with my salary. I didn't have quite as far as those in poverty to pull my self up by my bootstraps but I did, and in doing so it made me more capable and I had to improve myself.

Often when I hear opposition to such things as a system where all are given healthcare or supplying higher education, it does not seem to truly be about financial concerns, but about disregard for anyone other than oneself. Is this the case with you? Or could I rest easy knowing it is not so?If you think we do not care for anyone other than ourselves, look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries). And that's just government contributions. American individuals donated $226 billion in charities last year. It would take 3 Frenchmen, or 7 Germans, or 14 Italians to equal the charitable donations of 1 American.

But the fact is we are facing collapse of the US dollar. When the US government spends $trillions on stimulus packages, that's not our money. That's other countries money like China, and we do it without considering their reaction. Isn't that a bit arrogant? Then on top of that we add the national health care program. There's another $trillion... surely the Chinese won't mind another trillion. How long can this last?

TracyCoxx

11-10-2010, 12:15 AM

Speaking of bashing America, here's a pretty good article from one Canadian reporter in 1973 that had enough of it.

America: The Good Neighbor.

This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times, and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.

Stand proud, America!
Wear it proudly!!

smc

11-10-2010, 06:53 AM

I will not collect Social Security when I retire. I am 24 right now and by the time I am eligible to collect, there will be no more Social Security funds to draw from.

Humor us. Instead of dodging the real question that I asked, assume there are funds available when you retire. Now answer.

Enoch Root

11-10-2010, 09:07 AM

Actually, the principle is the same. The examples are different but the action of buying a product from someone selling something is the same. The products may have different uses but you buying the services from an auto mechanic and you buying the services from an insurance company does not change the fact that you bought something from someone. Appealing to emotion does not change the the principle of the action.

How can you possibly equate buying new shock absorbers to buying life-saving procedures? You may be buying in both cases, but to reduce it to merely the act of buying as opposed to taking its context into account is cold. It ignores the human.

No one can live alone. It is not possible. To live alone is to invite insanity. You don't hunt your own food. You're not a hermit and neither should you desire to be one. When you go to the supermarket you're depending on someone. When you go to the movie theater alone you're still depending on someone. Fractured as society in the US may be, have you noticed how you still clump together into areas? You may not speak to one another but you still live close to others. It's a little part of the gregarious animal in you expressing its natural/biological/evolutionary urge to live in groups, suffused in meaningful social interaction and validation--a little part of the gregarious animal expressing itself even when mired in bullshit like suburbs and the nuclear unit and the rending of ties after something like highschool.

Why shouldn't I appeal to emotion? I am not here blathering a la Glenn Beck. To remove compassion from any area of the human experience--and EVERYTHING is a part of the human experience--is a recipe for disaster.

Tread

11-10-2010, 09:19 AM

If you think we do not care for anyone other than ourselves, look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries). And that's just government contributions.

For someone who sets value on a reliable source, this link is not the best example, a Wikipedia article based on two sources, OECD and globalhumanitarianassistance.org which have an invalid link and are non existing page.

According to OECD the USA gave total the most because they have the most citizens. You take place 19 by percentage of GNI. Place 19 from 23 member counties isn?t that good.

American individuals donated $226 billion in charities last year. It would take 3 Frenchmen, or 7 Germans, or 14 Italians to equal the charitable donations of 1 American.

On what is that based on? You could try to adorn yourself with borrowed plumes. If a few Bill Gates/Hollywood Stars donate huge amounts you can reach good statistics per citizen, but it says nothing about your social charity per citizen.
You try to show how charitable and social the USA and it citizens are and base it on maybe a few amply individual donations. Then you say how many foreigner it would take to equal 1 American donation. Isn't that a bit arrogant?

Enoch Root

11-10-2010, 10:21 AM

The Conquistador

11-10-2010, 01:25 PM

Humor us. Instead of dodging the real question that I asked, assume there are funds available when you retire. Now answer.

I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur". If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.

The people who originally put into Social Security are withdrawing more than they put in. This is something that will not be able to continue for long.

Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?

The Conquistador

11-10-2010, 01:49 PM

Why shouldn't I appeal to emotion? I am not here blathering a la Glenn Beck. To remove compassion from any area of the human experience--and EVERYTHING is a part of the human experience--is a recipe for disaster.

The same reason why our country is founded upon the basis of a constitutional republic and not a democracy, or why we have our legal system set up so that you are judged by a panel of your peers rather than being judged by the family or friends of whoever may have been wronged.

Emotion clouds judgement and when you react to situation based on emotion, you tend to overlook certain important elements that would have been noticed and properly addressed with cold, rational thought. People are alot more easily manipulated when in an emotional state rather than when they are able to think clearly. If you were able to avenge every percieved wrong brought against you versus any actual wrong, you would not know truth from lie.

Distancing yourself from a problem, being able to get all the facts first and making an informed decision as opposed flying off the bat at every problem that evoked an emotional response is actually adding the "human element", as you put it, to a problem. Animals make decisions based on their emotions and can go from Ahab to Arab in the blink of an eye. They do not have the governer in place that allows them the faculties for rational thought. "Homo Sapien", it means "Smart Man." We are smart creatures. Our ability for rational thought and looking at a problem objectively is what makes us greater than animals, so if anything, adding emotion to our decisions is adding an "animalistic element" which has proven itself time and time again to be a recipie for disaster and does not allow for advancement as a people.

That is why problems that have such huge gravity (like laws and programs or decisions of life and death over people) that affect a multitude of people must not be taken lightly and must be scrutinized to the smallest detail, rather than based off of an emotional response.

smc

11-10-2010, 03:28 PM

I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur".

You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?
If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.

All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.

Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.

The Conquistador

11-10-2010, 03:46 PM

You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?

Yes. But is is a more solidly and probablility based "what if". What if an asteroid San Diego? What if zombies invaded? What if this happened? What if that happened? You can think of all the what if's all you want and deal with those. I just deal with the most likely ones to happen.

All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.

Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.

I answered that:I have a straightforward question for you, Tracy, and for The Angry Postman. It is a question posed often to politicians who seem to share some of your views, or at least express some similar views. They usually answer "entitlements," although what falls into that category (as generally defined), combined with nearly everyting else outside of the Defense Department, accounts for less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...

I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.

I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.

And yes, obviously you do support these programs to some degree, otherwise you would not have been pestering me about what I would do and trying to turn it into what I think about this or that. I have made myself pretty clear in my past posts in other threads about my stance on such things. If you are curious, I advise you to reread my previous posts.

smc

11-10-2010, 03:51 PM

Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.

I meant to leave out all but the last part, which did answer my question. The rest is what I meant by irrelevant. I introduced the confusion with my error in quoting.

I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.

This is insulting. You ascribed to me things I never stated. It has nothing to do with whether I like your answer. Quote where I said what you ascribe to me, or acknowledge that you put words in my mouth.

The Conquistador

11-10-2010, 04:06 PM

This is insulting. You ascribed to me things I never stated. It has nothing to do with whether I like your answer. Quote where I said what you ascribe to me, or acknowledge that you put words in my mouth.

I already explained my reasons for my response. If you were truly interested in what programs I would cut, we would not be having this discussion right now as it would have sufficed. By turning the direction of the discussion into whether or not I personally would draw Social Security (which has nothing to do with me wanting to cut the program), you invited the response that you got.

smc

11-10-2010, 04:13 PM

I already explained my reasons for my response. If you were truly interested in what programs I would cut, we would not be having this discussion right now. By turning the direction of the discussion into whether or not I personally would draw Social Security (which has nothing to do with me wanting to cut the program), you invited the response that you got.

You wrote: "I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely."

Since Social Security is the only one you mentioned that I could safely assume has a direct impact on you (i.e., I assume you're not on welfare, and you mention no others by name), I legitimately asked you about your personal relationship with drawing said Social Security -- based on your principled position in opposition to its existence. It was a completely legitimate question in the context of this discussion. By the way, no one has answered my specific question about which programs to cut.

Now you reserve for yourself the right to attribute to me statements I did not make because you don't like that I asked you the question.

The bottom line here, Postman, is that you put words in my mouth. I did not do that to you. You have now written more than one post trying to evade your fundamental violation of one of the tenets of legitimate and fair discourse, which is that everyone gets to state his or her opinion, not have it stated by someone else.

You owe me an apology, but more important you owe it to the Forum to have this discussion without putting words in ANYONE'S mouth.

Enoch Root

11-10-2010, 05:15 PM

The same reason why our country is founded upon the basis of a constitutional republic and not a democracy, or why we have our legal system set up so that you are judged by a panel of your peers rather than being judged by the family or friends of whoever may have been wronged.

Emotion clouds judgement and when you react to situation based on emotion, you tend to overlook certain important elements that would have been noticed and properly addressed with cold, rational thought. People are alot more easily manipulated when in an emotional state rather than when they are able to think clearly. If you were able to avenge every percieved wrong brought against you versus any actual wrong, you would not know truth from lie.

Distancing yourself from a problem, being able to get all the facts first and making an informed decision as opposed flying off the bat at every problem that evoked an emotional response is actually adding the "human element", as you put it, to a problem. Animals make decisions based on their emotions and can go from Ahab to Arab in the blink of an eye. They do not have the governer in place that allows them the faculties for rational thought. "Homo Sapien", it means "Smart Man." We are smart creatures. Our ability for rational thought and looking at a problem objectively is what makes us greater than animals, so if anything, adding emotion to our decisions is adding an "animalistic element" which has proven itself time and time again to be a recipie for disaster and does not allow for advancement as a people.

That is why problems that have such huge gravity (like laws and programs or decisions of life and death over people) that affect a multitude of people must not be taken lightly and must be scrutinized to the smallest detail, rather than based off of an emotional response.

We are a society of people, not robots. And I am speaking of positive emotions, not something like murder or other instances of injury.

You draw a false line between the human and the animal. It is one and the same. Love and compassion are just as necessary and good, if not greater, than "objective thought." Love is not the greater of sex. "I believe a leaf is no less than the journey-work of the stars." Do you understand? What is the point of banding together as a species and creating policy, if not to make our lives better? To desire my family or friends or neighbors to be hale and hearty is utterly reasonable and utterly human. That everyone is manipulated by the insurance companies and that this is an injustice is no imagined wrong.

I have never understood the continued disregard and devaluing of the emotions amongst you Americans. You bristle at that which is good, you bristle at the senses and at passion. It is Puritanical and outdated and should have died with the Mayflower. This is all the more ironic given the nature of this forum. The only emotion, the only passion you are good at and respond to, is that which is associated with fear. Glenn Beck sounding the trumpet of the ride of the Horsemen.

The Trinity of reasoned discourse: logos, ethos, pathos. I will not apologize for appealing to the emotions. It is an honored element of discussion. Any argument that does not attempt to address all three (reasoning, credibility of the speaker, and emotion) is an incomplete argument.

The Conquistador

11-10-2010, 05:42 PM

You wrote: "I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely."

Since Social Security is the only one you mentioned that I could safely assume has a direct impact on you (i.e., I assume you're not on welfare, and you mention no others by name), I legitimately asked you about your personal relationship with drawing said Social Security -- based on your principled position in opposition to its existence. It was a completely legitimate question in the context of this discussion. By the way, no one has answered my specific question about which programs to cut.

Now you reserve for yourself the right to attribute to me statements I did not make because you don't like that I asked you the question.

The bottom line here, Postman, is that you put words in my mouth. I did not do that to you. You have now written more than one post trying to evade your fundamental violation of one of the tenets of legitimate and fair discourse, which is that everyone gets to state his or her opinion, not have it stated by someone else.

You owe me an apology, but more important you owe it to the Forum to have this discussion without putting words in ANYONE'S mouth.

If I oppose Social Security and push for its dissolution, do you really think I would be worried about drawing from it?

And yes, I have answered your questions about which programs to cut. You never asked why or anything else, you just asked what programs we would cut.

And no, I did not put words in your mouth. If you you are as indifferent to such programs as you have stated or oppose them like I do, my feelings about the subject would have been implied and it would have unnecessary to ask such questions. You came across with an aire of defensiveness and preference towards such welfare programs and I took it as such. You have said before that it is up to the writer to be understood and had you made the effort to get across to me that you were purely interested in my opinion and said something like "I do not understand Angry Postman. Could you please clarify?" or something to the effect, rather than saying things like "Answer now!", perhaps I may have obliged you in a kinder manner.

smc

11-10-2010, 06:01 PM

If I oppose Social Security and push for its dissolution, do you really think I would be worried about drawing from it?

You hide behind the sophistic method of constantly trying to shift the foundation upon which discourse takes place. There are plenty of people in the world who argue for the dissolution of something and still benefit from it.

And yes, I have answered your questions about which programs to cut. You never asked why or anything else, you just asked what programs we would cut.

I presumed your reasoning was what you quoted from the Constitution and the 17 things you say the federal government has responsibility for, all related to defense and regulation of the currency.

And no, I did not put words in your mouth. If you you are as indifferent to such programs as you have stated or oppose them like I do, my feelings about the subject would have been implied and it would have unnecessary to ask such questions. You came across with an aire of defensiveness and preference towards such welfare programs and I took it as such. You have said before that it is up to the writer to be understood and had you made the effort to get across to me that you were purely interested in my opinion and said something like "I do not understand Angry Postman. Could you please clarify?" or something to the effect, rather than saying things like "Answer now!", perhaps I may have obliged you in a kinder manner.

I am purely interested in your opinion about Social Security and whether one who is on principle opposed to it should ever draw from it. This is abundantly clear from my questions. The only clarification that has been requested is of your method of arguing, which is to ascribe to me things I did not write.

Again, I defy you to prove your point, with quotes, that I expressed "defensiveness and preference" regarding welfare programs. I wrote about the notion of "social solidarity" and used such programs as an example. I've quote you again and again in this discourse, but thus far you have failed to provide a single quote to back up your characterizations of HOW I have engaged in the discourse.

I don't know how else to explain this, so I apologize in advance for the analogy I am about to use. It is used only because I am at a loss for any other way to make my point.

I teach at a university. All of my students are PhD students. We have seminars in which there is very heated discourse.

Let's imagine that the interaction you and I have been having on this site took place at my university in a classroom. Further assume, as is the case, that there is an accepted rule that professors and students are equals in seminars -- that is, there is no formal hierarchy, and any informal hierarchy is seriously frowned upon. I have absolutely not doubt that if the full record of our interactions were put before an independent body of students and professors serving as a commission of inquiry, that you would be found to have violated the standards for legitimate discourse. I am so certain of this that I would bet my career on it.

Now, before you dismiss this with some vitriol about liberal academia, I should point out that I am referring to my principal appointment at the university, which happens to be in the Management school -- hardly a bastion of liberalism, no matter what else the rest of my institution, or any other one for that matter, might be.

The Conquistador

11-10-2010, 06:37 PM

We are a society of people, not robots. And I am speaking of positive emotions, not something like murder or other instances of injury.

You draw a false line between the human and the animal. It is one and the same. Love and compassion are just as necessary and good, if not greater, than "objective thought." Love is not the greater of sex. "I believe a leaf is no less than the journey-work of the stars." Do you understand? What is the point of banding together as a species and creating policy, if not to make our lives better? To desire my family or friends or neighbors to be hale and hearty is utterly reasonable and utterly human. That everyone is manipulated by the insurance companies and that this is an injustice is no imagined wrong.

I have never understood the continued disregard and devaluing of the emotions amongst you Americans. You bristle at that which is good, you bristle at the senses and at passion. It is Puritanical and outdated and should have died with the Mayflower. This is all the more ironic given the nature of this forum. The only emotion, the only passion you are good at and respond to, is that which is associated with fear. Glenn Beck sounding the trumpet of the ride of the Horsemen.

The Trinity of reasoned discourse: logos, ethos, pathos. I will not apologize for appealing to the emotions. It is an honored element of discussion. Any argument that does not attempt to address all three (reasoning, credibility of the speaker, and emotion) is an incomplete argument.

Rational thought is what has helped us to overcome many challenges instead of rushing headstrong into the problem. I am very well aware of my emotions and my need for human interaction but I do not de-value my emotions, I simply keep them in check. Your inability think above "People need healthcare because it is a right" does not look at the many facets of what the impact of such a program would have. You are thinking of the immediate, which while not a bad thing, does not take into account things like the current debt crisis that we have, long term viability, abuses of the system, overall cost on the people, bureaucratic red tape and numerous other problems that federally instituted programs are notorious for.

Saying that people need such a program is inherently arrogant and condescending. You are in effect saying that you know what people need more than the people themselves. If you truly claim to care about others, then why do you wish to take away their ability to choose what is best for them? What works for you may not work for them and blanket policies like that just do not work. People do not have to use insurance companies because there are other places to get medical care at other than the hospital.

There are places like US HealthWorks and other businessess that will do quality jobs for cheap and they tell you how much it will cost up front. I've had quality dental work and minor surgeries for about a 10th of the cost of what it would have cost with an insurance company.. I am perfectly happy with what I have and I don't need the federal gov. to take from me to fund crappier quality healthcare.

If people wish to be charitable, let them. Do not force them to be charitable by using the federal government to take money from them. Instituting programs like that only keep people from realizing the consequences of their haphazard ways. Getting rid of social safety nets will force people to be responsible and will help them realize the long term effects of their actions and help them plan accordingly.

And no, fear is not the only emotion I respond to. Like I said, I keep my emotions in check and I try to look at a problem objectively. That doesn't mean I am a cold hearted bastard; I do feel and I am aware of the impact my actions can have and act accordingly. I do love people as well, I am just not the type who wishes to impoverish the many for the benefit of the few. I feel that if you stop holding people by the hand and let them make decisions by themselves, people will for the most part make choices that have positive effects.

The Conquistador

11-11-2010, 09:57 AM

smc and I now have settled our diffferences, misunderstandings and will now go paint the town red. It's either that or get drunk and light some shit on fire.

Enoch Root

11-11-2010, 10:35 AM

Umm, what's that campfire song? Hosanna? I guess? Am I getting this right?

What does that mean, painting the town red?

randolph

11-11-2010, 10:38 AM

mmmmm I like that.:drool::turnon::coupling:

Would you like to share cock and bull stories?;)

The Conquistador

11-11-2010, 10:49 AM

Would you like to share cock and bull stories?;)

How about cock and ass stories?

TracyCoxx

11-11-2010, 11:03 AM

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...

If I understand what you're saying, it's hard for me to answer that question since I do support taxing for more than just the military and regulation of currency. Of those things I propose to do away with funding for interstate highways. Funding highways forces states to abide by the national speed limit and other regulations that are a one size fits all solution. There are varying environments across the country and states should set their own regulations (although there should still of course be some consistency like signs and symbols, drive on the right, etc) and states are capable of paying for their own highways.

Financial aid is a good thing, but there's a problem with it... When colleges see that students are getting financial aid, they see that as an ok to raise their tuition.

Biomedical research should be funded. There should be public school aid because there should be national standards in education. Air traffic control system? Of course. National parks should definitely be preserved and protected against republicans. Maintaining the Library of Congress? Sure, why not. Medicare? I'm not up on medicare, but probably.

I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.

Social Security definitely needs to be overhauled. I liked the plan that Bush proposed where SS is phased out based on age. I've heard something about a new plan (by the democrats?) to lower SS benefits on the rich. Fine, as long as they don't have to pay for benefits they don't receive. And welfare... there's a whole buttload of problems there.

How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a "united states" at all?Because the reality is that this country is large and diverse. A set of laws for New York may not have any merit in Alaska. California is full of liberal whackos. Fine, they can adopt liberal policies (which is working out quite well for them LOL) without tanking the rest of the country. Or, if a state wants to try something and it actually works out well, then the rest of the country can adopt it.

If you're so against Social Security, are you going to collect when you retire? Sure, the government has been extracting some money out of your paycheck to cover your later draw, but on a principled basis shouldn't you refuse the payback?

I was forced in to paying into SS rather than putting that money into investments. Since I will still need that money for retirement and the government has forced that money to be in the form of SS, I have no other choice but to use it.

TracyCoxx

11-11-2010, 11:06 AM

Strawman, much?

I have raised a valid point. A large part of our health problems are caused by what we eat and how we care for ourselves. This is entirely within our control. 25% of what you eat keeps you alive. The rest of what you eat keeps your doctor alive.

Dodge questions much? Please answer the question. Should my taxes go to pay for someones triple heart bypass surgery when they have trashed their own arteries?

TracyCoxx

11-11-2010, 11:11 AM

Ok, it's getting deep in here. How bout a round for everyone :kiss:

randolph

11-11-2010, 11:22 AM

Ok, it's getting deep in here. How bout a round for everyone :kiss:

Hey great! Are us California wackos included? How about bringing in some hot shemales for a little R and R. I could fly to Texas for that. ;)

smc

11-11-2010, 02:05 PM

Umm, what's that campfire song? Hosanna? I guess? Am I getting this right?

I suspect you mean "Kumbayah."

What does that mean, painting the town red?

It means to engage in some sort of spree, originally riotous and bloody (hence the "red") but over time to mean go out at night, around town, and hit all the top spots, drinking, cavorting, carousing, and so on.

One origin of the phrase is said to come from the 1830s when a group of friends ran around a town somewhere in Leicestershire, England (I can't remember exactly), late a night, and painted a whole bunch of buildings red.

Another is the "Spring Heeled Jack" legend of England, which is linked to Henry de la Poer Beresford, a notorious hooligan who, while at Oxford University, used to cause a lot of mayhem. It included literally upsetting apple-carts, breaking windows, and painting the heels of a parson's horse with aniseed (which would come out red).

smc

11-11-2010, 02:26 PM

Tracy, I really, really appreciate your thoughtful answer to my questions. Despite what some may think, I am genuinely interested in a rational discourse about these issues. I want to make clear that I am not a liberal; my own political/economic positions put me way outside of the sphere in which liberals are typically situated. I confess to a lack of understanding of where conservatives and libertarians are coming from, outside of what often seems to be a reaction against change, because it seems as if many positions from the conservative and libertarian perspective run contrary to the economic interests of those who profess them, and in fact serve the interests of others in a class the conservative and libertarian can never hope to attain. That is why I really do appreciate real answers to real questions.

That said, I would like to explore your answers a bit more, and pose some additional questions.

Financial aid is a good thing, but there's a problem with it... When colleges see that students are getting financial aid, they see that as an ok to raise their tuition.

I'm glad you see financial aid as a good thing, especially in a country that does not offer free or nearly free tuition and access to higher education (as is the case in many European countries). One solution might be to establish such a system. Independent of that, though, I would be interested in where you have come up with this analysis that links financial aid to tuition increases. You are describing institutions of higher education as if they are profit-maximizing entities.

I have never heard of a causal relationship of the sort you describe. Typically, schools increase tuition because of cutbacks (in the case of public universities) or cost increases (in the case of private institutions), and they typically do not cut back financial aid -- much of which comes via the federal government -- when they increase tuition.

Biomedical research should be funded.

What makes biomedical research different than anything else with respect to whether the federal government or states should be the funders?

Because the reality is that this country is large and diverse. A set of laws for New York may not have any merit in Alaska. California is full of liberal whackos. Fine, they can adopt liberal policies (which is working out quite well for them LOL) without tanking the rest of the country. Or, if a state wants to try something and it actually works out well, then the rest of the country can adopt it.

The quote directly above is your response to these questions I posed: "How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a 'united states' at all?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal policies" -- perhaps you mean with respect to social issues. But putting that aside, let's look at regulation. Conservatives and libertarians often decry regulation, but it seems to me that there are some types of regulation that must either be established at the federal level or not exist at all. Food safety is an example, and here is a made-up scenario to illustrate my point. Arkansas allows chicken farms to feed their stock with something that is known to be somewhat toxic in humans, while Georgia forbids this. Arkansas chicken producers do not provide any label indicating what the chickens are fed, while Georgia producers are required to by state regulation. Even for those who argue "states' rights" here, there is obviously a problem so long as we have cross-state markets. So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.

smc

11-11-2010, 03:08 PM

Someone questioned my post about the origins of "paint the town red," so I thought I'd offer another answer. This comes from one of my favorite books: Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins, by William and Mary Morris, published in 1962:

"This colorful term for a wild spree, especially one involving much drinking, probably originated in the frontier. In the nineteenth century the section of town where brothels and saloons were located was known as the 'red light district.' So a group of lusty cowhands out for a 'night on the town' might very well take it into their heads to make the whole town red."

Personally, I think Mr. and Mrs. Morris are wrong, since the earliest known appearance of the term "red light district" dates from 1894.

The Conquistador

11-11-2010, 04:09 PM

So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

I am happy with things like food safety regulations but alot of times when there is federal involvement it usually goes from equality of opportunity where there is a level playing field and people are free to make whatever of the opportunities given to them , to determining the outcome for everyone. It is when the fed starts determining the outcome for everyone through programs is when things start becoming problematic. When things are localized, there is more responsibility placed on the individual entities and people. Things become alot more apparent upon a closer view than when looked upon with a broader view.

States and even individual cities have proven themselves capable of balancing budgets and funding programs that accomplish the same if not more than the Federal Government. Why then should the individual states not be able to determine things locally?

The problem that alot of libertarian or conservative types is not the programs themselves but the concentration of power at the highest levels and programs like those are more often than not just a way to increase power. History has proven that when there is a concentration or centralization of power, the likelyhood of corruption and favoritism exponentially increases. The reasoning for states rights is the same reason why businessess have a board of directors rather than one guy calling the shots. At higher levels where there is less familiarity with the people and what they are actually doing, the more potential there is for abuse. When you keep things at a lower level and more spread out, there is alot more responsibility placed on the individuals.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

I am not saying get rid of all the regulation, just get rid of the ones that don't fall within the scope of the powers of the federal government. If states want to regulate commerce between themselves, let them determine their policies. The one-size-fits-all mentality of the fed will only benefit those who can fit in that certain "size" so to speak and only determines outcome instead of opportunity.

The thing that people don't get is that by having a blanket policy of universal healthcare, you do not get Mayo clinic treatment; you get something more along the lines of Soviet Union-esque treatment. There is a saying within the federal government and the military of "Made by the lowest bidder." If that type of policy is rampant among federal institutions, and I ask people honestly, what makes you think that "universal healthcare" would be any different. What is to stop them from handing you Ibuprofen for all your medical ailments and then telling you to go kick rocks? Afterall, they did give you treatement for your medical condition right? Beware what you wish for because you just may get it. There is no checks and balances with federal policies, once instituted you would have a better chance turning lead into gold than getting a policy or program rescinded. Governments are never known for their ability to limit their powers, only their expansion.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience”
Albert Camus

randolph

11-11-2010, 04:43 PM

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.

Albert Camus

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.
If the rest of the civilized world can have universal healthcare why cant we? Oh right, we have to give tax breaks to the rich and spend billions on wars. :censored:

Enoch Root

11-11-2010, 05:15 PM

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

I am happy with things like food safety regulations but alot of times when there is federal involvement it usually goes from equality of opportunity where there is a level playing field and people are free to make whatever of the opportunities given to them , to determining the outcome for everyone. It is when the fed starts determining the outcome for everyone through programs is when things start becoming problematic. When things are localized, there is more responsibility placed on the individual entities and people. Things become alot more apparent upon a closer view than when looked upon with a broader view.

States and even individual cities have proven themselves capable of balancing budgets and funding programs that accomplish the same if not more than the Federal Government. Why then should the individual states not be able to determine things locally?

The problem that alot of libertarian or conservative types is not the programs themselves but the concentration of power at the highest levels and programs like those are more often than not just a way to increase power. History has proven that when there is a concentration or centralization of power, the likelyhood of corruption and favoritism exponentially increases. The reasoning for states rights is the same reason why businessess have a board of directors rather than one guy calling the shots. At higher levels where there is less familiarity with the people and what they are actually doing, the more potential there is for abuse. When you keep things at a lower level and more spread out, there is alot more responsibility placed on the individuals.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

I am not saying get rid of all the regulation, just get rid of the ones that don't fall within the scope of the powers of the federal government. If states want to regulate commerce between themselves, let them determine their policies. The one-size-fits-all mentality of the fed will only benefit those who can fit in that certain "size" so to speak and only determines outcome instead of opportunity.

The thing that people don't get is that by having a blanket policy of universal healthcare, you do not get Mayo clinic treatment; you get something more along the lines of Soviet Union-esque treatment. There is a saying within the federal government and the military of "Made by the lowest bidder." If that type of policy is rampant among federal institutions, and I ask people honestly, what makes you think that "universal healthcare" would be any different. What is to stop them from handing you Ibuprofen for all your medical ailments and then telling you to go kick rocks? Afterall, they did give you treatement for your medical condition right? Beware what you wish for because you just may get it. There is no checks and balances with federal policies, once instituted you would have a better chance turning lead into gold than getting a policy or program rescinded. Governments are never known for their ability to limit their powers, only their expansion.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.

Albert Camus

The use of "lowest bidders" is also common in the private sector. Curious you mention the military, seeing as how the US has the most advanced forces on the planet. Need I continue?

As for the tyrant quote, I must call its use absurd. I do not know what the context of it is (though I would hazard that it is referring to REAL tyrants and not democratically elected presidents), but nearly all evil people will try to cover up what they do as being for the good of the people. It is not reserved for what are deemed "liberal policies." And the briefest glance at the rest of the modern Western world will show that you are wrong about doing such things "for the good of the people" inevitably leads to tyranny or are the result of tyranny. Americans are not the sole Keepers of Liberty.

TracyCoxx

11-11-2010, 07:22 PM

Hey great! Are us California wackos included? How about bringing in some hot shemales for a little R and R. I could fly to Texas for that. ;)

That's ok, I'd rather go to California ;)

The Conquistador

11-11-2010, 07:24 PM

The use of "lowest bidders" is also common in the private sector. Curious you mention the military, seeing as how the US has the most advanced forces on the planet. Need I continue?

As for the tyrant quote, I must call its use absurd. I do not know what the context of it is (though I would hazard that it is referring to REAL tyrants and not democratically elected presidents), but nearly all evil people will try to cover up what they do as being for the good of the people. It is not reserved for what are deemed "liberal policies." And the briefest glance at the rest of the modern Western world will show that you are wrong about doing such things "for the good of the people" inevitably leads to tyranny or are the result of tyranny. Americans are not the sole Keepers of Liberty.

The gov. likes to spend money on stupid high speed shit but does not like to spend the extra dollar on its peons. The cost to get every service member a quality rifle in a better caliber, new ammunition and the training for a new platform would cost less than one F-22 Raptor fighter jet. Look up the DoD statistics in the cost of an F-22 versus the projected cost of purchasing, retooling and training for a new weapon. Why then do they insist on giving soldiers and marines an outdated weapon (M4) that has reduced range, accuracy and killing power, yet they will spend billions on a single fancy airplane?

I have seen the quality of government run healthcare both on active duty and through the VA hospital and it isn't pretty. Their method of helping you is by prescribing pills regardless of your injury and telling you to walk it off. If you think that is bad, you should wait until you you get operated on! Before, soldiers could not sue the doctors at the military hospitals but a lacksadaisyical attitude has become so commonplace that there have been an overwhelming amount of complaints and soldiers can now sue the military for inadequate care and malpractice. Google "Walter Reed Medical Hospital" if you do not believe me. The VA has been having the same shit go on for decades. If they show so much disregard for those that took an oath to serve their country, what makes you think that their attitude towards civilians would be any different?

Again I ask the question. Why is it so wrong to let people decide what kind of healthcare they want instead forcing them to partake in a government healthcare plan?

The Conquistador

11-11-2010, 07:31 PM

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.
If the rest of the civilized world can have universal healthcare why cant we? Oh right, we have to give tax breaks to the rich and spend billions on wars. :censored:

You do realize that the government by itself does not make much money and the money it does have is collected from you, I and everyone else who either lives in this country or does business with us by the way of taxes and tarrifs, right? So you would be paying for inferior care whether you recognize it or not.

Can you clarify the bolded part? Is that aimed at treatment facilities, health insurance companies and hospitals or is that directed at the government?

TracyCoxx

11-11-2010, 07:42 PM

What makes biomedical research different than anything else with respect to whether the federal government or states should be the funders?The biomedical field is a huge driver of the economy and necessary for the health of US citizens. It helps the country to be on the bleeding edge of this field. I still think it should be largely commercial, but if there are technologies in the biomedical field that are too financially risky for companies to take on, but could potentially pay back huge, then it may require the government to provide the funds to get it going.

Conservatives and libertarians often decry regulation, but it seems to me that there are some types of regulation that must either be established at the federal level or not exist at all. Food safety is an example, and here is a made-up scenario to illustrate my point. Arkansas allows chicken farms to feed their stock with something that is known to be somewhat toxic in humans, while Georgia forbids this.If there's a danger with toxic food the FDA should step in, or at least mandate that the chicken be labeled stating the potential risk. If there's a risk to the population, the government has a responsibility to step in, while weighing the liberties of Americans and states rights. There should be a united states because each state is not its own country. They are all bound by the US Constitution.

TracyCoxx

11-11-2010, 07:45 PM

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.How does the government pay for it without taxing the people for that cost?

randolph

11-12-2010, 01:13 PM

How does the government pay for it without taxing the people for that cost?

Well, of course we don't get something for nothing. Europeans are willing to pay high taxes for health care because they consider it worth it. It releases them from the anxiety of whether they can afford the healthcare they need to stay alive.
Apparently, in this country, the people who have healthcare don't care whether people without it live or die. I think there is a racial component to this issue along with being "poor".

randolph

11-12-2010, 01:18 PM

That's ok, I'd rather go to California ;)

Yeah, San Diego has great weather and lots of hot shemales. :drool:

The Conquistador

11-12-2010, 02:34 PM

Yeah, San Diego has great weather and lots of hot shemales. :drool:

You're in SD? Lets grab a beer sometime if you are. :)

smc

11-12-2010, 03:46 PM

If there's a danger with toxic food the FDA should step in, or at least mandate that the chicken be labeled stating the potential risk. If there's a risk to the population, the government has a responsibility to step in, while weighing the liberties of Americans and states rights.

Thanks again, Tracy, for your thoughtful response. It is a pleasure to continue the dialogue in a rational and productive way.

I'd like to ask you a bit more about your answer to my question regarding food safety, which I used as an example for a more general question about regulation.

Your response references the FDA. In the example I gave, it would be a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would handle the issue, at least as the federal government is constituted at present. Nevertheless, my question really is about having regulations in advance of a crisis. You responded about the federal government stepping in once a problem or crisis has been revealed. How do you, as a libertarian, feel about the federal government regulating things to prevent such a crisis. In this case, it would clearly be in the form of federal regulations prescribing certain things to protect consumers from toxicity in food. These regulations supersede states' individual regulations; in other words, a state can have a more rigid regulatory regime, but not a more lax one.

I asked a libertarian colleague about this today and he gave me a convoluted answer that I could only understand as an attempt to agree with the need for federal regulation without endorsing federal regulators -- quite a feat of verbal acrobatics. Where do you come down on this issue?

randolph

11-12-2010, 05:22 PM

You're in SD? Lets grab a beer sometime if you are. :)

Well, I am pretty close, about half way between LA and SD.
One of these days I am going to hire two nice tgirls who will put on a hot tranny to tranny show and then ??? :drool::turnon::inlove:

Enoch Root

11-13-2010, 07:34 AM

Again I ask the question. Why is it so wrong to let people decide what kind of healthcare they want instead forcing them to partake in a government healthcare plan?

It is not that it is wrong. It is that not everyone has access to healthcare. People need food and water and an education and health and a system to heal them when they sicken. You needed healing when you ended your service. This isn't arrogance, this is looking at a problem/situation and realizing something is needed, that we need to come together as a people to remedy it. You got those surgeries at US Healthworks. Great. Now think of all the people who can't go to such places and the services those places may not provide. A system must be put in place that allows such access. It is easy to speak of "individual responsibility" when you have the means to provide for yourself. Not everyone can provide for themselves. Individual responsibility requires/assumes that what you need is somewhere around and you have the means to get it. It is impossible to get fresh meat if there is no local butcher.

The answer to the Walter Reed problem, and others like it, is not to wave these places out of existence but to improve them--to hold people's feet to the fire, and burn them if necessary. Again, look to the rest of the modern Western world. They're doing pretty good. By all studies they are healthier and happier and better educated, precisely due to policies which you might term liberal. Because the government is working for the people, rather than merely for the moneyed class. It provides for the people, who in turn hold their government accountable. Is that not "individually responsible"? Is that not democratic? That things work badly in your country doesn't mean it can't work at all.

The Conquistador

11-13-2010, 05:26 PM

It is not that it is wrong. It is that not everyone has access to healthcare. People need food and water and an education and health and a system to heal them when they sicken. You needed healing when you ended your service. This isn't arrogance, this is looking at a problem/situation and realizing something is needed, that we need to come together as a people to remedy it. You got those surgeries at US Healthworks. Great. Now think of all the people who can't go to such places and the services those places may not provide. A system must be put in place that allows such access. It is easy to speak of "individual responsibility" when you have the means to provide for yourself. Not everyone can provide for themselves. Individual responsibility requires/assumes that what you need is somewhere around and you have the means to get it. It is impossible to get fresh meat if there is no local butcher.

Before you think that I am well off, I make less than $18,000 a year right now as it stands. I am well within that "low income" bracket and I would be considered to be one of the poor, impoverished people who can't afford healthcare by most standards. Yet I am able to afford my own healthcare! Why? Because I save my money, I spend it wisely, I shop around for my healthcare instead of letting a health insurance company rape me out the ass and I eat right and stay fit with exercise. It isn't that hard to do. By allowing this sort of program, it essentially says, "Go ahead! Be cavalier with your body. Eat yourself into a diabetic coma. Check into the emergency room for every cough and sniffle you have and jack up the costs for everyone else. At least someone else gets to pay for it!"

All "free" health insurance does is distance people from the actual costs of their healthcare. When I go to US Healthworks or a similar clinic, they tell me the cost up front. They don't charge you out the wazoo like Blue Cross or a similar place does and they have alot of the same treatments available that you'd find at a hospital. By having the gov. pay for it, the costs will increase through way of taxes and other revenue collection schemes and you will eventually end up paying higher the market price for lower quality care.

The answer to the Walter Reed problem, and others like it, is not to wave these places out of existence but to improve them--to hold people's feet to the fire, and burn them if necessary. Again, look to the rest of the modern Western world. They're doing pretty good. By all studies they are healthier and happier and better educated, precisely due to policies which you might term liberal. Because the government is working for the people, rather than merely for the moneyed class. It provides for the people, who in turn hold their government accountable. Is that not "individually responsible"? Is that not democratic? That things work badly in your country doesn't mean it can't work at all.

Ahhh yes. The good ol' Europe example. Even though they are going belly up and can no longer afford to pay state employees and do not have the money to cover the costs of their social safety nets, at least they have free healthcare, right? Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Britain and other Euro countries are pretty much in the shitter, with the exception of Germany, and yet we should look to them for guidance?

Again, you assume that when the gov. gives you free healthcare, 1) The moment your money has been deducted, it hasn't already been spent by the fed since the start of these programs (Why else can't you fully deduct all that you have paid into Social Security and all the other programs or why when you pass away, all the "leftover" money never gets sent to your relatives or to cover funeral costs?), 2) People won't abuse the system (i.e. Hypochondriacs crying about every boo boo they have or idiots clogging up the ER when they have the flu), 3) The politicians enacting such legislation actually care about you (Afterall, why else do we have a defecit if they were the careful bean counters that some think they are?), 4) That everyone who pays into it will get the same amount back and 5) That you will have high quality treatment instantly. Unfortunately, all these social safety nets are just cleverly disguised revenue collection schemes that are proving themselves to be unsustainable.

Think of it as a water pump. When you have a steady supply of water pump, a constant pressure on the water and a steady flow from the pump, it all works out and there is no problem. Once the pump starts spinning faster and increases the amount of flow with the amount of water and the amount of pressure staying the same or lessened, you get a condition known as cavitation, where the pressurized water vaporizes and heats up to the point where it can literally melt or crack the impellers of the pump and render it useless.

We are experiencing the same thing with these programs. The reckless federal spending, the freebies and pay raises that politicians give themselves, misuse of the system, the intentions of the programs and general ineptitude of federal programs will only ensure that these programs will end up being another government endorsed ponzi scheme that is destined to fail from the get go and ends up being a drain on the people.

Brit healthcare- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7071660.stm

Brit healthcare 2- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/9407633/Americans_Dont_copy_the_British_healthcare_system/

European financial crisis- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Spain-downgraded-as-Europe-apf-1816859080.html?x=0

European financial crisis 2- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/euro-n13.shtml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The Conquistador

11-13-2010, 05:39 PM

Well, I am pretty close, about half way between LA and SD.
One of these days I am going to hire two nice tgirls who will put on a hot tranny to tranny show and then ??? :drool::turnon::inlove:

I have a few tranny friends here in SD...

TracyCoxx

11-14-2010, 01:40 AM

[QUOTE=randolph;164323Apparently, in this country, the people who have healthcare don't care whether people without it live or die. I think there is a racial component to this issue along with being "poor".[/QUOTE]
Oh puleeeeez!

TracyCoxx

11-14-2010, 01:48 AM

Your response references the FDA. In the example I gave, it would be a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would handle the issue, at least as the federal government is constituted at present. Nevertheless, my question really is about having regulations in advance of a crisis. You responded about the federal government stepping in once a problem or crisis has been revealed. How do you, as a libertarian, feel about the federal government regulating things to prevent such a crisis. In this case, it would clearly be in the form of federal regulations prescribing certain things to protect consumers from toxicity in food. These regulations supersede states' individual regulations; in other words, a state can have a more rigid regulatory regime, but not a more lax one.I'd go along with that. I don't really have anything against the FDA as it stands now.

TracyCoxx

11-14-2010, 01:53 AM

What if the fellow man smokes and eats donuts for breakfast, a #6 supersized at McDonalds, snacks on candy in the afternoon, has fried chicken for dinner and rounds it off with ice cream every evening? Do my taxes pay for his triple heart bypass surgery?Strawman, much?I have raised a valid point. A large part of our health problems are caused by what we eat and how we care for ourselves. This is entirely within our control. 25% of what you eat keeps you alive. The rest of what you eat keeps your doctor alive.

Dodge questions much? Please answer the question. Should my taxes go to pay for someones triple heart bypass surgery when they have trashed their own arteries?

Still watiing...

Enoch Root

11-14-2010, 08:02 AM

Tracy, you are already paying for this man. And he is very much a real man somewhere out there: round the corner, sitting behind you at the diner or the movie theater, maybe even a relative you rarely see or a relative you dearly love. You pay for this man by an increase in your, and everyone else’s, health insurance premiums, an increase that would not be there if this man had health insurance as well. You pay for this man by an increase in your taxes if his surgery was dealt with in a public hospital or Veteran’s Administration.

The inevitable conclusion is this: if indeed you wish never to have to pay for any individual then all public funding for this man, and all others like him, in need of surgery would have to cut. The question to you, then, is this: should there be NO public funding of healthcare, including Medicare? For that would be the only way you see no increase in your taxes or premiums.

The Conquistador

11-14-2010, 01:34 PM

Quantitative easing explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

And with cute little characters too!

randolph

11-14-2010, 03:56 PM

Quantitative easing explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

And with cute little characters too!

Wow, that is fantastic! Time to plant a vegetable garden. :censored::censored::censored:

TracyCoxx

11-16-2010, 07:36 AM

Tracy, you are already paying for this man. And he is very much a real man somewhere out there: round the corner, sitting behind you at the diner or the movie theater, maybe even a relative you rarely see or a relative you dearly love. You pay for this man by an increase in your, and everyone else?s, health insurance premiums, an increase that would not be there if this man had health insurance as well. You pay for this man by an increase in your taxes if his surgery was dealt with in a public hospital or Veteran?s Administration.
I'm paying for him if he works at my company and is in the same insurance group. There is probably some mixing of risks between various populations though. Do you think taxes should go to pay for the health problems of those who abuse their own bodies?

smc

11-16-2010, 08:13 AM

I'm paying for him if he works at my company and is in the same insurance group. There is probably some mixing of risks between various populations though. Do you think taxes should go to pay for the health problems of those who abuse their own bodies?

Actually, Tracy, and I say this without taking a position on the broader questions, it does not matter whether he works at your company and is in the same insurance group. There is a societal amortization of insurance that works across all insurance providers, all the insured, and all the uninsured.

randolph

11-16-2010, 08:26 AM

I'm paying for him if he works at my company and is in the same insurance group. There is probably some mixing of risks between various populations though. Do you think taxes should go to pay for the health problems of those who abuse their own bodies?

Since the beginning, humans have abused themselves with alcohol, drugs, food and yes sex, you name it and somebody has abused it and caused health problems.

One way or another, societies have attempted to help people who are in trouble whether it is self inflicted or not. That is what a society is all about. Taxes and insurance premiums are a way to provide this support.

Tracy, if you get laid off from your good (government?) job, lose your health insurance and need an expensive operation in order to stay alive, how are you going to feel? :eek:

TracyCoxx

11-17-2010, 07:41 AM

Since the beginning, humans have abused themselves with alcohol, drugs, food and yes sex, you name it and somebody has abused it and caused health problems.
...

Tracy, if you get laid off from your good (government?) job, lose your health insurance and need an expensive operation in order to stay alive, how are you going to feel? :eek:
Since you begin this stating that humans have abused themselves, I assume when you say I need an expensive operation you're talking about an operation for a self inflicted condition. I have read a lot about exactly how to avoid that kind of thing and live a healthy life. If I am in this predicament it means I have not followed it well, so I would be really pissed. I would wish I could go back and do better. But then I would be glad that I'm still on Cobra.

If I'm not on Cobra, then the law is that if you go to a physician, or a hospital for emergency treatment, and you do indeed, have an emergency, they are required by law to treat you until you are stable and can either be discharged or transferred to another facility, such as a state owned hospital. This is regardless of whether or not you have insurance.

randolph

11-17-2010, 08:23 AM

Since you begin this stating that humans have abused themselves, I assume when you say I need an expensive operation you're talking about an operation for a self inflicted condition. I have read a lot about exactly how to avoid that kind of thing and live a healthy life. If I am in this predicament it means I have not followed it well, so I would be really pissed. I would wish I could go back and do better. But then I would be glad that I'm still on Cobra.

If I'm not on Cobra, then the law is that if you go to a physician, or a hospital for emergency treatment, and you do indeed, have an emergency, they are required by law to treat you until you are stable and can either be discharged or transferred to another facility, such as a state owned hospital. This is regardless of whether or not you have insurance.

Not all medical conditions are the result of abuse. Genetics can be a problem and physical injuries are are often unavoidable. I suppose a true libertarian would refuse medical attention from a tax supported institution and would avoid insurance coverage since it is a community effort to help individual members. The true libertarian would refuse all help unless paid for directly out of pocket.

TracyCoxx

11-17-2010, 08:35 AM

Good luck in your bid for House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. You're a fantastic creator of jobs for republicans.

randolph

11-17-2010, 10:56 AM

Good luck in your bid for House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. You're a fantastic creator of jobs for republicans.

I wonder how Nancy and Barak are going to get along the next two years if she leads the liberal Dems and he is after the GOP mods. :confused:

franalexes

11-17-2010, 11:25 AM

Good luck in your bid for House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. You're a fantastic creator of jobs for republicans.

For this reason, I hope she gets it.

smc

11-17-2010, 12:01 PM

It's unfortunate that the thread is again reverting to a discussion that is not about the issues. We were doing so well for a brief while.

Tread

11-17-2010, 12:10 PM

If I'm not on Cobra, then the law is that if you go to a physician, or a hospital for emergency treatment, and you do indeed, have an emergency, they are required by law to treat you until you are stable and can either be discharged or transferred to another facility, such as a state owned hospital. This is regardless of whether or not you have insurance.

Am I getting this right? Everyone is paying with their taxes for people who are not insured and need an emergency treatment. You don?t want to pay others regular treatment with a new healthcare program, but want to keep the old system where you pay in an emergency.
Usually it is cheaper to maintain something than wait until a constructive total loss and than try to fix it.

What are the advantages in your old health care system? Or what I don?t get or get wrong?
it is by far the most expensive one,
your treatment quality is comparable to other high developed countries,
if you or your company can?t pay the insurance anymore, you only get treated in an absolute emergency,
the ones who are not insured are screwed and/or weight the tax payer, too,
your insurance companies decide how much you have to pay or even can refuse you,
it is bureaucratic to make the different accounts and to decide who gets what, because of your different insurance systems/emergency cases.
You can decide to not have an insurance, spent your money otherwise, and if you really need help the tax payer have to pay your treatment.

Since you begin this stating that humans have abused themselves, I assume when you say I need an expensive operation you're talking about an operation for a self inflicted condition. I have read a lot about exactly how to avoid that kind of thing and live a healthy life. If I am in this predicament it means I have not followed it well, so I would be really pissed. I would wish I could go back and do better.

There is no way to avoid that, you can only lower or raise the risk to something. You can get fat and lazy without any problems, or can stay fit as Bruce Lee and die however.

TracyCoxx

11-18-2010, 01:11 PM

It's unfortunate that the thread is again reverting to a discussion that is not about the issues. We were doing so well for a brief while.
You mean about Pelosi? The liberal free for all has her name written all over it.

randolph

11-18-2010, 01:26 PM

You mean about Pelosi? The liberal free for all has her name written all over it.

I don't understand this endless hatred of Pelosi.
I have heard her talk about issues, she is intelligent and articulate.
I think the conservatives are just jealous that they can't come up with some one with equal intelligence to represent them.

TracyCoxx

11-18-2010, 01:47 PM

Am I getting this right? Everyone is paying with their taxes for people who are not insured and need an emergency treatment. You don?t want to pay others regular treatment with a new healthcare program, but want to keep the old system where you pay in an emergency.
Usually it is cheaper to maintain something than wait until a constructive total loss and than try to fix it.
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? Rather than the government paying for everyone's health maintenance costs in addition to emergency care, why not do something smarter like outlawing high-fructose sugar? As the use of this sugar spread throughout the US obesity has also spread in exactly the same way. You get rid of this sugar and you greatly decrease all the problems that come with obesity, like heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, fatigue, etc. 1/3 of the people in this country are now obese, and it is still climbing. It used to be that 1-2% of children were obese. Now it's 13%! People would be healthier and feel better. Isn't that a lot cheaper?

There is no way to avoid that, you can only lower or raise the risk to something. You can get fat and lazy without any problems, or can stay fit as Bruce Lee and die however.Yes that's true but I'm not as quick to throw out statistics as you are.

smc

11-18-2010, 01:56 PM

You mean about Pelosi? The liberal free for all has her name written all over it.

Discourse about issues can be productive, and perhaps even lead to solving problems. Discourse about people involved in those issues is usually counterproductive, especially if it is in the form of invective, or name calling, or blame -- unless the objective is for the individual who engages in it to feel better about himself or herself. At least that's my observation over the course of my life, and I've rarely found anyone who can mount a convincing argument to the contrary.

TracyCoxx

11-18-2010, 01:58 PM

I don't understand this endless hatred of Pelosi.
I have heard her talk about issues, she is intelligent and articulate.
I think the conservatives are just jealous that they can't come up with some one with equal intelligece to represent them.

LOL good one. For those who don't get the joke though Pelosi is notorious for shutting out republicans from back door meetings and cramming bills through congress that involve 1/6 of the country's economy while the majority of Americans were telling her and congress to STOP! This was a huge breach of trust with the American people and resulted in the biggest routing of Congress in a election in over 50 years.

smc

11-18-2010, 02:11 PM

Plus it adds another $trillion to our debt.

It's okay to have any opinion of the healthcare plan and expresss that opinion, but none of us in the discussion should be entitled to our own facts. The non-partisan Congresssional Budget Office estimated that the bill would cost $940 billion in the first 10 years but would also reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the same ten years.

TracyCoxx

11-18-2010, 02:13 PM

randolph

11-18-2010, 02:24 PM

LOL good one. For those who don't get the joke though Pelosi is notorious for shutting out republicans from back door meetings and cramming bills through congress that involve 1/6 of the country's economy while the majority of Americans were telling her and congress to STOP! This was a huge breach of trust with the American people and resulted in the biggest routing of Congress in a election in over 50 years.

Is her politicking any different from what both party leaders have been doing forever? :innocent:

smc

11-18-2010, 02:29 PM

I'm sure you were just as quick to point that out when it was open season on slamming Bush

Other than perhaps joining in the "fun" in a Sarah Palin thread during the election season of 2008, you'd be hard-pressed to find me violating this "rule" as I wrote it above with respect to "slamming Bush" anywhere on this forum. I may have chimed in on some policy discussions, but not in the way you are implying.

I can't take responsibility for the behavior of others. And yes, I reminded people many times during the Bush presidency that what he did mattered more than whether he was, for instance, the sharpest knife in the drawer.

randolph

11-18-2010, 02:34 PM

Discourse about issues can be productive, and perhaps even lead to solving problems. Discourse about people involved in those issues is usually counterproductive, especially if it is in the form of invective, or name calling, or blame -- unless the objective is for the individual who engages in it to feel better about himself or herself. At least that's my observation over the course of my life, and I've rarely found anyone who can mount a convincing argument to the contrary.

Quite true, it seems politicizing and ranting about individuals is a way of smoke screening the real issues. We have critical issues facing us that are being covered over, ignored and distorted.
We no longer have enough domestic oil to supply our needs.
We spend billions to buy oil from Arabs
We out source the heart of our economy the industrial worker.
We consume far more than we need.
We are like a bunch of drunken sailors in a lifeboat. The booze is running out and we have nowhere to go.

Yet the politics is so intense that nothing is being done to ensure our future as a viable country.:censored:

Tread

11-18-2010, 08:04 PM

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?
The cost to start this should be taken by the government, the trillion you mentioned. There is no surprise that this cost much at the beginning, but this should be amortized over time (as smc mentioned).

Rather than the government paying for everyone's health maintenance costs in addition to emergency care, why not do something smarter like outlawing high-fructose sugar? As the use of this sugar spread throughout the US obesity has also spread in exactly the same way. You get rid of this sugar and you greatly decrease all the problems that come with obesity, like heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, fatigue, etc. 1/3 of the people in this country are now obese, and it is still climbing. It used to be that 1-2% of children were obese. Now it's 13%! People would be healthier and feel better. Isn't that a lot cheaper?

Personally I would prefer marking the products combined with elucidation about fructose.
Especially products labelled with diet do lot harm, because people think they are doing their self something good with less sugar. It contains less sugar, but most of it is fructose instead of a better sugar mix and it has often more fat than non diet products.

Yes that's true but I'm not as quick to throw out statistics as you are.

I don?t want to throw out statistics. I know what they show in general, but they do not work on an individual, there are always exceptions and everybody could be the exception.

TracyCoxx

11-19-2010, 08:34 AM

"Is her politicking any different from what both party leaders have been doing forever? :innocent:"

Yes

TracyCoxx

11-19-2010, 08:44 AM

Quite true, it seems politicizing and ranting about individuals is a way of smoke screening the real issues. We have critical issues facing us that are being covered over, ignored and distorted.
We no longer have enough domestic oil to supply our needs.
We spend billions to buy oil from Arabs
We out source the heart of our economy the industrial worker.
We consume far more than we need.
We are like a bunch of drunken sailors in a lifeboat. The booze is running out and we have nowhere to go.

Yet the politics is so intense that nothing is being done to ensure our future as a viable country.:censored:

This goes both ways. Not only should you attack at person's policies rather that attacking them, but when electing a president you should praise his policies rather than praising them. Very few people who voted for Obama even knew much about his policies. They just knew he was a cool guy. And he wasn't Bush. (Neither was McCain btw)

TracyCoxx

11-19-2010, 09:17 AM

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 mentioned. There is no surprise that this cost much at the beginning, but this should be amortized over time (as smc mentioned).Most people who are trying to figure out why people don't like Obama care automatically assume it's those idiot republicans who just don't understand. They never consider that it may just happen to be a really bad plan. Other than the fact that dems got trounced in the elections, here's another indicator that Obama care will fail: Several large corporations are getting waivers from the government so they don't have to comply with the insurance changes.

Personally I would prefer marking the products combined with elucidation about fructose.products are marked. There's just very little choice for people wanting to avoid fructose or the mystery diet crap.

randolph

11-19-2010, 09:26 AM

Most people who are trying to figure out why people don't like Obama care automatically assume it's those idiot republicans who just don't understand. They never consider that it may just happen to be a really bad plan. Other than the fact that dems got trounced in the elections, here's another indicator that Obama care will fail: Several large corporations are getting waivers from the government so they don't have to comply with the insurance changes.

products are marked. There's just very little choice for people wanting to avoid fructose or the mystery diet crap.

The reason its a bad plan is because the medical industry wrote. :censored:

TracyCoxx

11-20-2010, 12:47 AM

randolph

11-20-2010, 07:41 AM

Our government is run by a bunch of idiots. TSA lets a bunch of soldiers coming back from Afghanistan carrying a bunch of serious weaponry. Yes, unloaded, but still... Here's the crazy part. They bar one of the soldiers from boarding because he has nail clippers, which could potentially be used as a weapon to take control of the plane.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/

Do we really want these kinds of people running our health care system? That's another thing people from outside the US don't realize is how inept our government workers are.

A teacher in Florida was doing a magic trick for his students in which he made a toothpick disappear. He was fired for doing witchcraft. No joke. That's how bad it is here. The USA is a 3rd world country with the world's largest economy.

Yes, agreed, we have idiots from top to bottom. Of course most of them are conservatives. Liberals are intelligent, responsible politicians and know how to properly run the country in an honest efficient way, right?
Look at the evidence, the country is debt free, we have plenty of energy, our schools are the best and we are free of crime and drugs. What a wonderful country, right?

TracyCoxx

11-20-2010, 09:59 AM

Yes, agreed, we have idiots from top to bottom. Of course most of them are conservatives. Liberals are intelligent, responsible politicians and know how to properly run the country in an honest efficient way, right?
Look at the evidence, the country is debt free, we have plenty of energy, our schools are the best and we are free of crime and drugs. What a wonderful country, right?

I don't think I implied it was only one political group in the government. They're both retarded. Politicians... step back from our money.

randolph

11-20-2010, 01:16 PM

I don't think I implied it was only one political group in the government. They're both retarded. Politicians... step back from our money.

I think the only way we can get good government is to change the structure of Congress. The enormous cost of getting elected and reelected is corrupting the government. It makes Congressmen very susceptible to financial influence.
So I propose that Congressmen serve one term of six years only. Then they can concentrate on governing. An enhanced impeachment process could be implemented to kick out bad asses before their term runs out. I don't think there is any value in the seniority situation, the longer they are in, the more corrupt they get. Congressional staff does and would do most of the work on getting bills together.
Also, since the airwaves are owned by the government, a certain number of hours of TV and Radio time should be provided free for candidates.
Oh well, good government, just a dream.

TracyCoxx

11-20-2010, 04:08 PM

Also, since the airwaves are owned by the government, a certain number of hours of TV and Radio time should be provided free for candidates.Which candidates? With the prohibitave cost of running there are bound to be dozens, maybe hundreds more candidates. Do they all get their certain number of hours of fame?

Tread

11-22-2010, 10:27 AM

Would you think a change in your political system would be a good idea?
Maybe a party proportional representation in place of a simple plurality voting system. Which could lead to multi party system, with more than two parties. Where everyone can choose a party that fits them the most instead of choosing the lesser evil.

I also get the impression that your campaigns are strongly based on blaming the others, evil rumours of the other, fear of something and money. It seems to me the own manifestos are less important, but I could have got that wrong.

transjen

12-02-2010, 01:38 AM

Words of wisedom from George

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

:eek:Jerseygirl Jen

randolph

12-02-2010, 11:25 PM

by David Glenn Cox
Excerp from Let the Sky Fall
Let us wipe the stars from our eyes. These Republicans are not going to cooperate, not now, not ever. They will use every tool at their disposal to subvert, obstruct, divert, and defame because, in the words of their hero, they want to see Obama fail. If you or a few million other Americans suffer, well, they just don?t care. Why should they? They never cared before; they?re the party of self, self-righteous and self-aggrandizing. They accept their wealth as a God-given prerogative to rule over the unwashed multitudes. Even now they preach if we don?t do anything the economy will fix itself in a year or two. We just have to take our medicine, but what they mean is you have to take their medicine and that?s just too bad for you.
They have proven by their behavior that they are not a party of democratic principles but a party of semi-compassionate fascism. They will cede no ground because of an election, or a wave of public sentiment. They will do whatever they deem necessary to bring down this administration, even let the sky fall. So, let the sky fall, let the sun crash and commence with the days of iron rain. Let the blood of the guilty and the tears of the innocent mix and intermingle in the sewers of greed. They seek the truth through gold, eternal life through eternal wealth, and the gospel of freedom through the cleansing of the iron rain. They see men as tools and tools as men; Heaven and Hell being all in one place, at their discretion alone. The war has begun, the blood will flow into the crop circles of the damned, and in the puddles of the iron rain.

The GOP will eventually reap what it is sowing.

TracyCoxx

12-03-2010, 07:49 AM

Let us wipe the stars from our eyes. These Republicans are not going to cooperate, not now, not ever. They will use every tool at their disposal to subvert, obstruct, divert, and defame because, in the words of their hero, they want to see Obama fail.What was it from the last election that tells you it is the republicans who must cooperate? It's not just this vague little group called the republicans that want Obama to fail. It's the red in the attached image that want Obama to fail.

The democrats are completely clueless. Apparently they just always will be. Here's Obama... "What the election means is that the voters just didn't understand what we were trying to do!" LOL. Here's another one. "We weren't spending enough!" :lol: Completely clueless. Oh well, we'll get the other half in the next election.

randolph

12-03-2010, 12:19 PM

What was it from the last election that tells you it is the republicans who must cooperate? It's not just this vague little group called the republicans that want Obama to fail. It's the red in the attached image that want Obama to fail.

The democrats are completely clueless. Apparently they just always will be. Here's Obama... "What the election means is that the voters just didn't understand what we were trying to do!" LOL. Here's another one. "We weren't spending enough!" :lol: Completely clueless. Oh well, we'll get the other half in the next election.

If your right, it means the end of "Liberty and Justice for All". The "Fascist" element in The Republican Party will rule the country. So much for worrying about Islamic terrorists. We will be all be to blame if this happens. :frown:

franalexes

12-03-2010, 03:12 PM

"Liberty and Justice for all" was never meant to mean "The lame and the lazy shall be provided for."

Let me know when Charlie Wrangel spends jail time for tax evasion.

randolph

12-03-2010, 05:05 PM

"Liberty and Justice for all" was never meant to mean "The lame and the lazy shall be provided for."

Let me know when Charlie Wrangel spends jail time for tax evasion.

Gee, I didn't know that hardworking people that lost their job and are in process of losing their house as a result of things beyond their control are "lame and lazy" . :innocent:
I guess I am one of the "clueless". :innocent:

Yes, old Charlie should spend some jail time along with the bankers that created all these "lame and lazy" people.:frown:

randolph

12-05-2010, 12:58 PM

transjen

12-05-2010, 03:16 PM

It's amazing how many lame and lazy people we have out there. A couple of years ago, they were all working, humm. Perhaps Wallmart could hire some of them to unpack all the goods from China that we used to make here.
Or we could send them to China where they could work for fifty cents an hour with no benefits. Along with them, I suggest we send a contingent of conservatives to see how they like it.:eek:When the workers in China and India start demanding and receving anything near a living wage and the US workers and the US is a thrid world country and then will be happy to work for 50 cents a day then and only then will the jobs come back, Ronald R invisioned this dream and the GOP has been working hard to see it happen why do you think the GOP hates unions want to do away with min wage stop any lawsuits agianst big bussiness and wants all goverment oversight on the work place done away with
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

franalexes

12-05-2010, 04:40 PM

I remember very well when in the Clinton years and I had to train a China visitor how to do my job. It started well before W.

randolph

12-05-2010, 07:16 PM

I remember very well when in the Clinton years and I had to train a China visitor how to do my job. It started well before W.

Clinton was sort of "bipolar" when it came to politics.

randolph

12-05-2010, 07:25 PM

When the workers in China and India start demanding and receving anything near a living wage and the US workers and the US is a thrid world country and then will be happy to work for 50 cents a day then and only then will the jobs come back, Ronald R invisioned this dream and the GOP has been working hard to see it happen why do you think the GOP hates unions want to do away with min wage stop any lawsuits agianst big bussiness and wants all goverment oversight on the work place done away with
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Its just a rerun of the 1930s. The conservatives hated FDR. Some of them even attempted to get a general to take over Washington and set up a semi-fascist state. Many of the big corporations had close business ties with Nazi Germany (Ford, Dow, IBM, etc). We are not that far off, big business controlls Congress and is bankrolling their corporate puppets the Tea Party.

transjen

12-05-2010, 07:33 PM

What everyone forgets is NAFTA was laid out by George H Bush and Ronald Reagan ,Clinton was left that piece of crap and foolishly he signed it
I rember then president George H Bush being asked about the jobs that will be lost and his answer was well yeah some of the low paying low skilled jobs will be lost but they will then get high paid high skilled jobs to make up for it and today we have an 10 percent unemployment to show for it and all the tax cuts in the world will not bring the jobs back the jobs will come back only when the US works will work for 50 cents a day with no bennies
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

randolph

12-05-2010, 08:02 PM

If the Democrats had any balls they would not put up with this.:frown:

GRH

12-05-2010, 08:13 PM

Let me know when Charlie Wrangel spends jail time for tax evasion.

Charlie committed no crimes, unlike Republican fanboy Tom DeLay.

franalexes

12-05-2010, 09:35 PM

Charlie committed no crimes, unlike Republican fanboy Tom DeLay.

To bad for Charlie that the IRS and the democrat House doesn't know that.

TracyCoxx

12-08-2010, 07:42 AM

If the Democrats had any balls they would not put up with this.:frown:

Even BO will compromise and allow the super rich to keep their tax cuts lol.

randolph

12-08-2010, 10:11 AM

Even BO will compromise and allow the super rich to keep their tax cuts lol.

BO is a PUSSIE! :censored::turnoff::censored::frown:

Nancy Pelosi for President! ;)

TracyCoxx

12-08-2010, 10:32 AM

BO is a PUSSIE! :censored::turnoff::censored::frown:

Nancy Pelosi for President! ;)

For Russia maybe lol

randolph

12-08-2010, 10:48 AM

For Russia maybe lol

LOL I thought you would get a kick out of that. ;)

Seriously, the Democrats needs to come up with someone just as mean as the Republicans.
Suggestions anyone?

TracyCoxx

12-08-2010, 12:37 PM

LOL I thought you would get a kick out of that. ;)

Seriously, the Democrats needs to come up with someone just as mean as the Republicans.
Suggestions anyone?

No one can out-mean Pelosi. And Harry Reid is a bastard as well. Not only is he satisfied with cramming that health care down the country's throat without a vote that affected 1/6 of the country's economy, he's going to try and make millions of illegals legal as well without a vote. And this is RIGHT AFTER seeing how Americans reacted to being cut out of the process with the health bill. Harry Reid's Dream Act says to Americans: Fuck You.

I saw the 4 leading Republican names for the 2012 presidential ticket:
Sarah Palin - aka religious fundie
Newt Gingrich - aka religious fundie
Mitt Romney - aka religious fundie
Mike Huckabee - aka extreme religious whackjob

I thought the Tea Party was going to give us better alternatives than this.

TracyCoxx

12-08-2010, 12:52 PM

Guess what boys & tgirls. Looks like another *&^($ stimulus package is on its way. Over $800 billion more of what we don't have, raising the debt past $14 trillion. Let's all bend over for China :coupling:

randolph

12-08-2010, 01:24 PM

TracyCoxx

12-08-2010, 01:36 PM

What happens when the worlds largest economy goes bankrupt? :eek: :turnoff::broken:

Uh, we can cut spending? oh what am I saying. That's just crazy talk.

randolph

12-08-2010, 01:44 PM

Uh, we can cut spending? oh what am I saying. That's just crazy talk.

The right has, since FDR, been determined to eliminate all public services (social security, welfare, food stamps, etc.) that he instituted. What do you think would happen if they got their wish?

transjen

12-08-2010, 03:02 PM

Nancy Pelosi for President! ;)

UM NO!!!!!! :eek:
if that was to ever happen i'll need to learn the words to OH CANADA
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

TracyCoxx

12-08-2010, 03:23 PM

The right has, since FDR, been determined to eliminate all public services (social security, welfare, food stamps, etc.) that he instituted. What do you think would happen if they got their wish?

It would be a heck of a lot worse than if the dollar collapsed because we couldn't get our spending under control. Is a $14 trillion debt just too big for you or anyone else to comprehend so you ignore it? So you just go on and act as if it doesn't exist and say ok, now back to our entitlements....

The Conquistador

12-08-2010, 03:25 PM

UM NO!!!!!! :eek:
if that was to ever happen i'll need to learn the words to OH CANADA
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

You can do that. I'll party with my polar bear brethren. Hopefully, ila won't mind the influx of forum members at his igloo... ;)

The Conquistador

12-08-2010, 03:30 PM

BO is a PUSSIE! :censored::turnoff::censored::frown:

Nancy Pelosi for President! ;)

For Russia maybe lol

Too late. Vladmir Putin is the President of Russia and he is by far alot more badass than Pelosi. She will have to go be in charge of another country which embraces the principles of a kleptocracy, preferably Zimbabwae, Nigeria, Venezuela or Cuba.

transjen

12-08-2010, 03:54 PM

It would be a heck of a lot worse than if the dollar collapsed because we couldn't get our spending under control. Is a $14 trillion debt just too big for you or anyone else to comprehend so you ignore it? So you just go on and act as if it doesn't exist and say ok, now back to our entitlements....

Typcial GOP BS,

The hugh debit was not made by entitlements this hugh debit was made by Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the two wars he started
Ending entitlements completely will no where near elimitate the debit
If the GOP really called about the debit they would not be adding trillions to it by keeping the tax cuts for the rich

ila

12-08-2010, 04:25 PM

You can do that. I'll party with my polar bear brethren. Hopefully, ila won't mind the influx of forum members at his igloo... ;)

No problem. Come on up. There's always room for my good friends from tlb.

randolph

12-08-2010, 06:19 PM

No problem. Come on up. There's always room for my good friends from tlb.

Could S. Californians stay warm up there? :eek:

randolph

12-08-2010, 06:24 PM

It would be a heck of a lot worse than if the dollar collapsed because we couldn't get our spending under control. Is a $14 trillion debt just too big for you or anyone else to comprehend so you ignore it? So you just go on and act as if it doesn't exist and say ok, now back to our entitlements....

I don't think anyone including conservatives comprehends the huge debt.
If the conservatives would get serious about the debt, they would support canceling the huge tax break for the rich. :frown:

The Conquistador

12-08-2010, 06:40 PM

Could S. Californians stay warm up there? :eek:

Yes. Booze and firewood will keep you warm, unless you want to spoon with polar bears!

randolph

12-08-2010, 06:48 PM

Yes. Booze and firewood will keep you warm, unless you want to spoon with polar bears!

Well, I don't know about the spooning business.:innocent:

ila

12-08-2010, 07:34 PM

Well, I don't know about the spooning business.:innocent:

Running will also keep you warm.

Now you know what happens when you drop by and don't bring any beer with you. :lol:

ila

12-08-2010, 07:36 PM

Yes. Booze and firewood will keep you warm, unless you want to spoon with polar bears!

Yes, that's true on all counts. I also know for a fact that snuggling with my girl keeps the two of us warm.

transjen

12-08-2010, 07:54 PM

Well, I don't know about the spooning business.:innocent:

Depends on the bear, i wouldn't touch a mama grizzy with a ten foot pole but polar bears are cute and cuddly

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

randolph

12-08-2010, 08:53 PM

Depends on the bear, i wouldn't touch a mama grizzy with a ten foot pole but polar bears are cute and cuddly

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Humm, Does that include Ila? :innocent:

transjen

12-08-2010, 10:29 PM

Humm, Does that include Ila? :innocent:

Well his polar bear is cute but i like BOO BOO better

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

TracyCoxx

12-08-2010, 10:40 PM

Typcial GOP BS,

The hugh debit was not made by entitlements this hugh debit was made by Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the two wars he started
Ending entitlements completely will no where near elimitate the debit
If the GOP really called about the debit they would not be adding trillions to it by keeping the tax cuts for the rich

I didn't say debit. I said debt. And I think you're thinking of deficit rather than debt. Deficit is the amount we over spend each year, and yes we had some ass kicking to do after 9/11 and it cost some money. I've said it before and I'll say it again. BO has already outspent Bush's over spending by several times.

I'm talking about the soon to be $14 trillion DEBT which is the amount we owe to other countries. It has been growing over the last century and has really taken off since Nixon took us off the gold standard. When we get back to something Bush did we'll call you ok?

TracyCoxx

12-08-2010, 10:46 PM

I don't think anyone including conservatives comprehends the huge debt.
If the conservatives would get serious about the debt, they would support canceling the huge tax break for the rich. :frown:

We can't pay off the debt if our economy grinds to a halt. You drastically raise taxes for business owners (i.e. the rich) in the middle of a recession and that's what you'll do. And guess what. The democrats will be wanting more trillion dollar stimulus packages and continue raising the debt to help all the out of work people because you want to tax businesses to death. We need to allow the economy to recover, and cut spending, people will return to work and the debt will go down.

randolph

12-08-2010, 11:28 PM

We can't pay off the debt if our economy grinds to a halt. You drastically raise taxes for business owners (i.e. the rich) in the middle of a recession and that's what you'll do. And guess what. The democrats will be wanting more trillion dollar stimulus packages and continue raising the debt to help all the out of work people because you want to tax businesses to death. We need to allow the economy to recover, and cut spending, people will return to work and the debt will go down.

Part of the unemployment problem is companies are hording cash and not hireing because productivity is keeping up with demand. Unless demand increases faster than productivity companies will not hire. So what increases demand? Putting people back to work.
We need to make our own stuff. Rich American companies are making their stuff in China. It's time to tax the profits of goods made outside the US.

transjen

12-08-2010, 11:41 PM

No i said debit ie like a magic card you insert and money comes pouring out

I think we can both agree something needs to be done about the sea of red ink started by W,

Where we disaggree on is who has to pay for it as you and the GOP feels the poor and working poor and midclass should foot the bill and suffer all the pain and the rich can live as they have and not worry about it
since 01 the rich and bussiness has had all the breaks and this trickle down did not create jobs all it did was create more red ink while the rich got richer
Trickle down is the biggest load of horse crap ever spoon feed to the US public in truth is a reverse Robin Hood that steals from the poor and gives to the rich as the rich pisses on the poors back and tells em it's raining
You want to drain the red ink then raise taxes you want to create jobs start putting a big taxes on all imports and perhaps then companies will start making good in the US
The rich has had 8 years of massive tax cuts and it's time they start paying for there party
I'm waiting for the GOP's next FU tax gimmick where they will claim Bussiness should not pay any yaxs at all and the employees should pay the taxes for em
wait an see it will happen
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

TracyCoxx

12-09-2010, 12:25 AM

No i said debit ie like a magic card you insert and money comes pouring out

I think we can both agree something needs to be done about the sea of red ink started by W,This isn't something we agree on. Bush did not create the debt.

Where we disaggree on is who has to pay for it as you and the GOP feels the poor and working poor and midclass should foot the bill and suffer all the pain and the rich can live as they have and not worry about it
since 01 the rich .... snip
I think you were born in '01. You have no concept of any other president other than Bush & BO. That there was debt before Bush comes as news to you. If anyone thinks he's got a magic debit card it's BO. He's printed several trillion dollars since he's come into office. If you can cite a time when Bush contributed more to the debt than your beloved Obama then by all means, tell me. Otherwise this is becoming a bore.

transjen

12-09-2010, 01:22 AM

OF course W is innocent after all he started with a balanced budget and for the first time ever the goverment had money left over and your great little runt W who stole the election pissed it all away the first few months he stole power by round one of his tax cuts for the rich and starting the sea of red ink then he started two wars and did a second round of tax cuts for the rich then he bailed out wall street and then he started the US car makers bailout and yet you have the balls to say W didn't create this mess
I don't care how bored you get but the truth is W started the sea of red ink and trickle down economics only adds more red
Bo screwed up by caving in to the GOP and allowing two more years of tax cuts for the rich adding 900 million to the red ink all thanks to the GOP who demanded the rich not pay taxes the same GOP who ran on ending the debt
So tell me agian how the GOP is innocent and none of this is there fault and don't give me any of Rush or Palins made up BS
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

randolph

12-09-2010, 08:49 AM

What Republicans are determined to ignore is that labor creates wealth. The miners digging ore, the assemblers in the auto plant, the machinist making machines, these are the people making wealth. Businessmen (CEOs) take that created wealth and distribute most of it to themselves. Its true enough that managers allocate and manage labor to optimize the creation of wealth but they do not create it, the workers create it. Even on Wallstreet if the guys behind the computers went home, no wealth would be created.
Basically, the Republicans want a slave economy where they get all of the benefit from labor and don't have to pay for it.
This is what they want and they are determined to get it. Hopefully, soon the workers in this country will wake up, but I doubt it. :frown::censored:

TracyCoxx

12-09-2010, 09:28 AM

randolph

12-09-2010, 04:24 PM

Obama's Huge Would-Be Gift To The Scions Of The Super-Rich

by Dan Froomkin
WASHINGTON -- Millionaires and billionaires would reap big rewards if President Obama's tax cut deal becomes law, but thanks to the agreement's estate-tax provisions it's their heirs who will make a real killing.
http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/cash_1.jpgThe estate tax is a particularly hot-button issue with progressives who see the increase of income inequality and loss of social mobility as being the main underlying problems with modern American society. (Credit: Reuters/Rick Wilking)
The Obama concession that's getting most of the attention in the media is the one that would extend the Bush income tax cuts even for households making over $250,000 a year. That's a gift to your average millionaire of $139,000 a year (http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2862) for the next two years. But it's the estate tax cut which, despite its relatively lower public profile, has proven even harder for congressional Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/house-democrats-tax-cuts_n_794404.html) to swallow. Obama's deal would free an estimated 40,000 of the biggest estates in the country each year that would otherwise have been subject to the tax from paying a single penny.
And the approximately 3,500 estates that would remain subject to the tax at all -- consisting of the top 0.14 percent of all U.S. estates each year -- would pay at a much lower rate.
Compared to current law, that would amount to a gift in 2011 averaging about $3.5 million for each of the thousand or so estates worth $20 million or more.
The total cost to the taxpayers would be about $23 billion a year.

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