American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 2

QuakHunter

05-16-09, 15:06

I'm telling you, these Republican's are lying dirty MotherFuckers, wasn't always that way, but they sold themselves out to get elected. They invited the extream right wing bible belt states, the South, into the party and the whole country has paid a dear price for it. There all Rightous MotherFucker's better than thou.

Now it seams to be unwinding. Were learning of the corruption Bush & Cheney orchestrated and how they deciceved us, the American people.

Fighting a war we never should have been involved in all over a Lie, hundreds of thousands of innocient people dead because of it, over 4 thousand of them American's.

Useing Christian right wing Justice Dept lawyers to write legal opinions giving them legal authority to Torture prisoners. Then making Federal Judges out of the CockSuckers. Where they sit for life with there demented thinking.

Fireing 9 sitting US Attorney's for doing their job's, rooting out corruption. Problem was they were investigating Dirty Republican's and they had to go. Went right to the Attorney General himself and his Christian underlings doing the dirty work, The CockSuckers.

I could go on all day, I'll end by saying there some truly dumb MotherFuckers that post on this board.

ExonExon, I am so glad we have the need and desire for high quality affection from beautiful economically challenged Chicas or I would not think we are from the same fucking planet.

The Republicans have no monopoly on stupidity, immorality or being "lying dirty MotherFuckers" as you put it. But while I have never defended Bush's judgement, I have defended the fact that he was principled.

It is a fact that in the days after 9/11 seemingly 84% of the American populace agreed with those principles. After seven years of growth and after our country felt collective pain, on the second Monday in November 2008 that number was. Well let's just say it was lower.

I've never been a conspiracy theorist, but let's just say there is a wide disparity about the garbage that is recycled into the mainstream media's views and allows the idiots in our country to get information in ten-second sound bites.

That being said, I offer the following:

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Tony Blair a set of inexpensive and useless (to Tony Blair's UK video formatting) DVDs, when Tony Blair had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

I have never supported Obama and that is based on strictly philosophical disagreements on values, economics and double standards. I had an open mind about him and other than calling him an Asshole in a joke before the election I have not attacked him or his party personally except to point out the absolute fucking hypocrisy of everything he stands for.

If left unchecked, he will make the US exactly like Argentina. That would be fine if we had the access to the beautiful, high-quality, low-cost pussy that beautiful Argentina has.

If that happened, I would gain eighty pounds and change my name to Maradona.

Exon123

05-16-09, 23:39

Obama has no choice but to double the debt, if he didn't the Argentine's would be flying up here to fuck our women.

We were and are that close to defaulting to the whole fucking world. If he hadn't shored up all those bank's & AIG we would have.

Fire's the CEO of GM, you want the money board of directors get rid of Rick Wagner. Next I'll fire you lame fucks. That Fuck Ross Perot said it to Roger Smith 24 years ago then he quit the board, its the worst run company in America, still is.

I want one you bright Fucks to tell me what a "Credit Default Swap" is, or where you buy and sell them and how much do they cost. Or just tell me what a simple plain Drivetive is. How many different types are there, where you get them, how much do they cost.

No one know's the answers to those questions. No one. We don't know how much trouble were in. There keeping it quite so no one will panick, MotherFuckers.

The President has been in office less that 4 months and people are starting to get on him. All of this is the result of Reagan and his followers deregulating.

Exon

Member #4112

05-17-09, 00:14

During congressional hearings this week AG Eric Holder informed congress they would be doing some needed "house cleaning" over at Justice since the Prez took office. Sounds kinda "political" to me. Seems a little strange to have Carl Rove talking to a DOJ attorney about the Bush possible "political" firings of DOJ attorneys a few years ago in the same week Holder is proposing the same thing. Oh I forgot, Bush was Rep and The Carmel One is a Dem.

As far The Carmel One having to double the debt to keep the Argies from coming to the states and doing our women, hell let them have at it and find out we have the worst puta's in the world up here. They sure as hell wouldn't stay long before fleeing for home.

Damman

05-17-09, 01:06

I want one you bright Fucks to tell me what a "Credit Default Swap" is, or where you buy and sell them and how much do they cost. Or just tell me what a simple plain Drivetive is. How many different types are there, where you get them, how much do they cost.

ExonDerivatives (Bush years): schemes used by companies to create fictitious assets and report fake earnings: transfer risk from one party to another.

CDS: you pay me money (insurance premium) and if that fuck's tab defaults, I'll make it good: "Trust me, I am good for it." (AIG)

This has been making the rounds on the Internet:

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.

She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans)

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.

By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets (derivatives) and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.

Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers. The rest is history.

Exon123

05-17-09, 03:04

The public doesn't know, were just learning what they did to us. The Bush adminstration was crimimnal. They set us back a 100 years if we can ever recover from it.

Democracy can't exist without justice and look what Bush put to the Federal bench. Eric Holder's job is to clean up some of this corruption. He can't get it all, some will sit there for life, but he'll get some of it.

I know what I'm talking about Monger's. I have a vantage point most of you don't. In fact I do this sort of thing for a living.

Exon

QuakHunter

05-18-09, 11:31

I want one you bright Fucks to tell me what a "Credit Default Swap" is, or where you buy and sell them and how much do they cost. Or just tell me what a simple plain Drivetive is. How many different types are there, where you get them, how much do they cost.

The President has been in office less that 4 months and people are starting to get on him. All of this is the result of Reagan and his followers deregulating.

ExonExon, It wasn't Reagan and Bush.

"Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JPMorgan Chase. They were designed to shift the risk of default to a third party, and were therefore less punitive in terms of regulatory capital.

Credit Default Swaps became largely exempt from regulation by the SEC and the CFTC with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was also responsible for the Enron loophole. President Clinton signed the bill into Public Law (106-554) on December 21, 2000"

Straight from Wikipedia so it has to be accurate, right?

Maybe one of the conspiracy theorists on the board will accuse Karl Rove of manipulating the entry.

There is also the assumption that if people would have paid their mortgages, as they agreed to do so when they took them out, that the CDS market never would have collapsed. So where does Barney Frank and the girls get their due credit for holding the Republican pussies in Congress hostage by forcing bad loans on all of us?

I offer the following: "They all Suck and sold us out". Except for Ronnie, he was cool.

Exon, I want to go fishing with you someday. In absence of that at least post more stories of your adventures. The political discussion is wearing my ass out. Take care.

Jackson

05-18-09, 13:40

I know what I'm talking about Monger's. I have a vantage point most of you don't. In fact I do this sort of thing for a living.

ExonWhat, fighting corruption is now what you do "for a living"?

Jackson

05-18-09, 13:42

But, ''as you were doing this for a living'', you ignored me! BTW, Bush was the worst President of all time, while the Obomination is gaining rapidly!Hey Sid,

Has the country ever had a president that you did like?

Or do you simply rank all of them by how bad they were?

Please adivse.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

05-18-09, 13:49

...look what Bush put to the Federal bench.I told you guys, Exon is a closet Conservative who hates Republicans only because of some alleged incident in his past wherein he believes he was somehow dissed by what he believes was a Republican judge.

That's it, plain and simple.

If you ever talk to Exon about politics, it takes only a few minutes to realize that he doesn't actually subscribe to any of the underlying tenets espoused by the Democrats (like tripling the national dept) it's only his hatred of said allegedly Republican judge that compels him to proclaim himself as a Democrat.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW: Exon doesn't have a clue as to the specifics of who President Bush appointed to federal judgeships, he just knows that he hates them all because he just "knows" that they were all Republicans.

Member #4112

05-18-09, 15:41

Hey Sid,

I can go along with you on Reagan, but Ford was damaged goods from the start. Yes he vetoed spending but was only selected so he could pardon Nixon. After that we got Carter "I only lusted in my heart" - yea that's right up there with "I didn't inhale" - who IMHO was the worst we have had until The Carmel One, but I have faith he will yet make Jimmy look good in compairson!

Exon123

05-18-09, 18:22

How did this [Deleted by Admin] get to be a Federal Judge.

http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2009/04/should-judge-jay-bybee-take-blame-for.html

Or What About This [Deleted by Admin]

http://www.newser.com/article/d986qve00/special-prosecutor-rove-end-interview-on-politically-charged-firing-of-us-attorneys-in-2006.html

There Bad [Deleted by Admin] and thats the nicest thing you can say about them.

Exon

Rockin Bob

05-18-09, 18:58

The Clarin had a great comic today, maybe it's a little too late to post but there are still a few hours in the day.

For those of you who didn't see it, it's pretty basic, as there is no dialog. Just the daily piece by Crist, entitled, Guantanamo.

It shows Obama at a podium, his shadow, what looks like a cowboy, would be, right, G W Bush.

All this brings to mind a very old song (depending on your age) by The Who.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution.

Take a bow for the new revolution.

Smile and grin at the change all around me.

Pick up my guitar and play.

Just like yesterday.

Then I'll get on my knees and pray.

We don't get fooled again.

Don't get fooled again.

No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss

Jackson

05-18-09, 20:43

1. Ronald Reagan.Reagan?

How could Reagan have been a great president?

Everybody knows that one must have a law degrees and a high IQ to be a great president.

And while I'm at it, don't give me any of that BS about experience either. Everybody knows that education is much more important than experience.

Thanks,

Jackson

BadMan

05-19-09, 00:17

How about having both?
Everybody knows that education is much more important than experience.Regards,

BM

Exon123

05-19-09, 10:14

I told you guys, Exon is a closet Conservative who hates Republicans only because of some alleged incident in his past wherein he believes he was somehow dissed by what he believes was a Republican judge.

That's it, plain and simple.

If you ever talk to Exon about politics, it takes only a few minutes to realize that he doesn't actually subscribe to any of the underlying tenets espoused by the Democrats (like tripling the national dept) it's only his hatred of said allegedly Republican judge that compels him to proclaim himself as a Democrat.

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW: Exon doesn't have a clue as to the specifics of who President Bush appointed to federal judgeships, he just knows that he hates them all because he just "knows" that they were all Republicans.http://abovethelaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=12&search=kent&searchsubmit.x=0&searchsubmit.y=0&searchsubmit=submit

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6417805.html

A Republican Bush 41 appointee.

But in Jackson's defense, we were talking once and he came up with the profound statement, "Depending if your guilty or not, depends entirely apon those judgeing You"

Exon

Exon123

05-19-09, 13:48

They got into the Dept of Justice and useing their own people changed things for their own conserative agenda and we as citizens have had to live with it.

Read item 5 Restoring Confidence in the Department of Justice.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/challenges/2008/index.htm

Exon knows.

Exon

Jackson

05-19-09, 15:23

Exon knows.Exon knows what?

How to use Google?

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

05-19-09, 17:28

Exon123

05-19-09, 19:05

Exon,

You are always complaining about the Republician federal judges, but don't you remember when the Supreme Court (the last word on if it is legal) was liberal. Do you really wish to return to the days when Earl Warren was chief justice?YEP,

In fact the particular Judge I'm most imterested is a Democrat yet thr Republicans are much better in putting Exons in office.

Berger v. United States.

295 U. S. 78 (1935)

Quote.

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."

Exon know's and not from google as our leader has proported.

Exon

Member #4112

05-19-09, 21:18

Exon,

Is anybody not a "cocksucker" in your humble opinion? Hey big guy, I don't think even you were alive in 1935, that's a reach!

The period from which you have chosen this quote is so far removed from what the US is today as to be almost another country. Lighten up big guy.

Exon123

05-20-09, 12:11

Doppelganger,

I mean no offence when I say this, but trust me, you don't have a "Fucking Clue"

The one thing thats remained constent since before they built the pyrmids is human nature. What we're watching now is the news media unwinding the Bush adminstration. It couldn't have been done while Bush was in power because they would have retaliated like Richard Nixon did useing the FBI, the IRS & the Justice Dept to do so.

What held true in 1935 still holds true today, since basic human nature hasn't changed. Bush's people and the Christian Right Winger's, (Conservative States, that got em elected) tried to change our Democracy. To do so they've put there own people in power, people that think like they do.

Here's a good example http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2009/04/should-judge-jay-bybee-take-blame-for.html

Jay Bybee helped write the legal opinions that allowed Bush to tell the American people "We Don't Torture Prisoners". Then as a reward for his loyalty they make him a Federal Judge appointed for life. You can't have Democracy unless you fairness and Justice.

Thats what I'm driving at when I quote a Supreme Court Justice's opinion thats 70 years old. The conscept still holds true today. Some people in the Bush adminstration are criminals and should be prosecuted.

Exon

Member #4112

05-20-09, 13:09

Exon,

I take no offense that you believe I have no clue. I hope you take no offense I believe your point of view to be myopic and predicated on a false belief that "Republicans" are bad and "Democrats" are good. While I believe there are both good and bad in both parties with the "good" being those of the centralist wing of both parties and the "bad" being those on the extremes of both parties, they are all greedy and only seem interested in insuring their own reelection. Those few with the "peoples" interest at heart are no longer in the majority and are soon corrupted by the system. If there was ever a better argument for term limits for the House and Senate this is the time and their past follies the reason.

The Democrats have been buying votes for years with every welfare program that came down the pike. To say I was profoundly disappointed the Republicans took this same path after coming back to power in 1994 would be a gross understatement. Both parties are paying the price for their folly over the last several years, or should I say we are paying for their folly. As for the Warren court, it was a blight upon the land and a judicial malignancy we still suffer from today.

Tiny12

05-20-09, 14:29

I mean no offence when I say this, but trust me, you don't have a "Fucking Clue".

Bush's people and the Christian Right Winger's, (Conservative States, that got em elected) tried to change our Democracy. To do so they've put there own people in power, people that think like they do.

Some people in the Bush adminstration are criminals and should be prosecuted.

ExonYou're the one that doesn't have a f_____clue, and I mean to offend you. You think LBJ was any better than Nixon when it comes to morality and promoting his own agenda? Clinton was any better than Bush? I don't have much respect for most politicians. I do know there are some Democrats that want to take every cent I've got. And there are some Republicans, libertarian-thinkers, who actually have good sense and believe in protecting the rights of individuals. Give the people you support complete power and in 50 years the U. S. just might look like Argentina.

Exon123

05-20-09, 17:05

Here an example of what I'm talking about.

http://progressivevalues.blogspot.com/2009/01/usps-wasted-money-promoting-religion.html

A direct quote from the link above.

"The fact of the matter is that some like religious partisan Mormon Brent D. Ward want to impose their own religious views on the entire nation. And Brent Ward helped to fill both the FBI as well as the federal prosecutors with more like himself that who believed that the promotion of his own religious agenda was the proper role for government. Whoever knew that the major role of government should be the promotion of the personal Mormon religion of Brent D. Ward?"

If you have any doughts read the whole link above, these are dangerious people.

Exon

Jackson

05-20-09, 18:58

Some people in the Bush adminstration are criminals and should be prosecuted.Exon,

Undoubtedly there are "some" people in evey presidential administration who committed criminal acts, and thus you can make that statement about every president's administration.

"Some people in the Clinton adminstration are criminals and should be prosecuted."

"Some people in the Reagan adminstration are criminals and should be prosecuted."

"Some people in the Carter adminstration are criminals and should be prosecuted."

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

05-20-09, 19:02

El Queso

05-20-09, 20:36

I have to step in here and make a comment regarding religion in politics.

Doppleganger, you have made a comment that many of the Republicans (in true conservative style, as far as the term means to conserve and maintain what is) have made so many times trying to justify their desire to force religion on people, or ensure that the US remains a Christian nation as THEY define it. I feel that I have to respond.

Doppleganger, I am not saying you believe this or not, just a comment on the following quote that is pertinent to how I feel about government and religion (thank god this isn't polite company! :) ):

"are these people any more dangerous than those wishing to impose their view of a godless society on the majority of the American people."

I am not liberal in the sense of the word that the Republicans have made a curse word. I am liberal more closely defined by the defintion in Wikipedia under it's Liberalism entry. A quote from that page:

"Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law."

Indeed, to me that definition sounds so much more like Libertarian, to which school of thought I happen to belong.

Now, very few who hear the term "Liberal" escaping from the mouths of Republicans would ever equate the defintion above with what the Republicans mean when they say this. Generally what is meant is "Socialist", "Communist", "Libertine" (not Libertarian, quite different) and so on.

Including, I guess "Godless".

The truth is, the documents that were written by our founding fathers were varied in many ways. Some believed that government was the answer, some feared government. But of course one thing they all contained was indeed the word "God" because 230 some-odd years ago "God" formed so much of the way the people of that time thought.

However, they also believed (at least as far as the constitution goes) that the separation of church and state was a good thing. Why? Because they didn't want someone like good ol' King George telling them what religion to follow. Of course, that particular thought came out of centuries of religious war in Europe and was hardly uniquely "American" at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.

But times change - and also they understood that. Maybe they would be dismayed that there are fewer people who go to church and worship the way that they did then. They might even be dismayed that we go to great lengths to separate the church (any church) from government. Maybe that wasn't quite what they meant.

But I think they might be a little smarter than most people give them credit when, looking around at reality, the founding fathers realize that the world is much bigger now than it was then and the term religion is a bigger, more diverse creature now. Do we want to create a tyranny of "God"? Do we have to define who God is? Is that the government's responsibility?

But back to the definition of Liberal. It's so easy to throw a word out there and label someone. The fact is, most of the people who are called Liberal are not necessarily what is meant by definition presented above.

Likewise, the thought that a "Liberal" is "Godless" because he or she doesn't want the US Government to have ANYTHING to do with religion is ludicrous. To me, someone who says "you are free to practice WHATEVER religion you want as long as the government doesn't support it one way or the other but upholds no more than your right to do what you want, and by the way I also am a Christian and worship God in my own way" is hardly Godless! In fact, is truly quite liberal in thought - but not the dirty-word liberal.

Considering the reputedly large number of people in the US who say they believe in God, I think you will find that many of the so-called "godless liberals" are not godless at all and don't want to keep people from worshippng God, they just think the government shouldn't be involved.

Does that mean that someone in the government can't go to church and pray to his God? Of course not!

It's kind of funny that the conservative Republicans, who (supposedly) believe that government should be small and out of the people's hair, would be so concerned about keeping religion in government.

From my standpoint, both parties are so screwed up and infantile precisely because they try to grab on to emotional "sound bytes" like "godless liberals" and "greedy conservatives" that they cannot actually do anything that falls outside of very narrowly-defined scopes which they themselves have drawn around themselves.

And why in the hell does anyone really care if someone else believes in God? How many lessons need to be taught that people who believe in God sin very large too - look at history and all that has been done in the name of just about every religion that every existed!

Does that mean a "Godless" person is going to be even worse? Or does it mean that a godless person is human as well and has just as much chance of being good or bad as a supposedly religious person who supposedly believes in God?

Of course, I am "Godless". I'm sorry, but I think that God (indeed any religion that believes in supernatural beings) is a myth that people use to explain why things are so fucked up and to comfort them when it's time to die.

But now having said that, I would probably never be able to run for any office in the US. Why? Because it is a stigma - to run for office in the US, it doesn't matter what good you would do, if you admit that you do not believe in God.

How's that for equality? Without belief in God my opinions are not valid, no matter what they are? In my opinion, the people who are looking to keep a good separation between church and state are on the right track.

As far as the "Vast Majority" of Americans believing in God, well:

- The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001.

(see American Religious Identification Survey," by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, at: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf)

- There does not seem to be revival taking place in America. Whether that is measured by church attendance, born again status, or theological purity, the statistics simply do not reflect a surge of any noticeable proportions.

(see "Annual study reveals America is spiritually stagnant," Barna Research Group, Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/)

- The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months.

(see "American Religious Identification Survey," by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, at: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf

and

"Survey indicates more Americans 'without faith', " American Atheists, 2002-NOV-22, at: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist4.htm)

So even though Christians are still in the strong majority, I don't think it can be claimed as "vast". To me vast is something like 90-95%. But admitedly, that is an opinion.

But what about the other (now) 23% of Americans who don't believe in a Christian God. Do we submit them to the tyranny of the "religious right" in the US? One more:

Evangelicals remain just 7% of the adult population. That number has not changed since the Barna Group began measuring the size of the evangelical public in 1994....less than one out of five born again adults (18%) meet the evangelical criteria. (N = 1003; margin of error = ±3.2%).

(See "Annual Barna Group Survey Describes Changes in America’s Religious Beliefs and Practices," The Barna Group, 2005-APR-11, at: http://www.barna.org/)

Just what does tyranny mean?

Exon123

05-20-09, 21:44

Exon, are these people any more dangerous than those wishing to impose their view of a godless society on the majority of the American people? Check out the polls, since that is what most politicos live by, the vast majority of the American people believe in a supreme being.

Since you have no problem reaching back to 1935, why not go back a bit further to 1776 and 1778 where "GOD" figured proximately in the majority of the documents the Founding Fathers left for us.

Exon, didn't your mother ever teach you it is never proper to discuss religion or politics in polite company?What Will Happen to the Bush Administration and Their Arguably Unlawful Activities?

What's to be done about the lingering questions concerning the arguably unlawful activities of the Bush administration? I refer, for example, to such issues as the use of torture, the creation of secret prisons, the secret detentions of American citizens, and the NSA surveillance program. These actions, and many others, pose serious, still unresolved, questions about the legality and constitutionality of the government's conduct.

We cannot and should not shut our eyes to these questions. And we should not let ourselves be distracted from these questions by other pressing issues, such as the economic crisis facing the nation. If for no other reason than to set clearer ground rules for the future, we need a full public understanding of the decisions of the Bush administration. We need to know who made them, why they were made, why they were made in secret, whether they were justified, whether they were legal, and whether we can establish better decision making processes for the future.

Exon

Jackson

05-20-09, 23:12

I would like to remind everyone that Exon is not a liberal, he just hates Republicans.

He in in fact a closet conservative who occasionally identifies himself as a Democrat solely because they are the "Anti-Republicans"

Exon readers may note that he rarely discusses Liberal Democrat philosophies, generally preferring instead to post constant diatribes against the cocksucking, motherfucking Republicans.

In other words, Exon's posts should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

Thanks,

Jackson

Rock Harders

05-21-09, 00:37

Miami Bob

05-21-09, 02:03

Because it pained me to witness all the hatred and worst aspects of many basically decent people many of who I think of as friends or more than casual acquaintances full of such hate. I'd vote for the president 100 times again to avoid the horror created my the prior administration which for me signaled what might be the beginning of the end of a noble experiment--my country that I love.

A country, in part, formed in revulsion for the brutality by western europeans brutalizing human beings because of how one viewed the role of eating a waffer at church. They created rules so that no minority could be tortured or treated differently based upon religious belief or lack of belief.

This was a country, imperfect, but which generally took the moral high ground and exhibited a generosity which has been very rare in history. This generosity was exhibited whichever party maintained control.

I don't appreciate Rocks strong lanuage in expressing his views. He will be attacked. The views of past Republicans like Nixon or Eisenhower or Prescott Bush would be bashed and ridiculed as leftist naivety in this forum or on right-wing talk radio.

I don't want to talk politics with this group and I'll disappear again. I live in a Republican town. I have friends who are evangelical christians. I enjoy political dialog, but not with this group. I'll stick to pussy and where to eat pizza.

The reason that I am writing is that maybe one or two people will just stop and think about what I am honestly writing here. There should always be places to explore differences of opinion and differences of opinion are good and right and the way that it should be--else we can have a monarchy where your head is cut off with you disagree with the king. WE elect presidents in the usa, not kings. The majority of usa citizens tend to be moderate and may slightly shift with changes in the times. I hope that civility might return to my country--or maybe some of the western europeans are correct when they say.

That the USA is too young and without tradition, respect and true culture.

I hope that no one really believes that the USA has a destiny to bring democracy to all of the world and should use it's power in a post Soviet period to do so. That is what Ben Ladin says our views are and he is successfully recruiting people willing to die and kill to stop us.

The current recession will be a footnote in a history book 100 years in the future. Issues like the beginning of dialog with the muslim world so that the mullahs don't end up with control of most mainstream muslim states. May be more than a paragraph in those same books.

I've said enough and I still wish the the big O would ***** slap pelosi and shut her up. Read the audacity of hope--some very interesting ideas there--which might include ***** slapping palosi if you read the book carefully. Realize that your grandchildern likely will have more use for learning manderin than french in school and the usa might be 50% latin within the next 50 years. The only constant is change.

Your friend and fellow member MB

Rev BS

05-21-09, 04:06

Exon123

05-21-09, 15:36

Mongers,

Whether or not Exon is liberal or conservative is not important, but either way he is right about the neo-con Republicans that made up the Bush Administration being war criminals and traitors. These people (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and their ilk) are greed-driven religious psychopaths who are no better or less radical or less dangerous than any of the worst inmates at Guantanamo or the mullahs who control Iran. Essentially, the Bush neo-cons started a war of aggression in Iraq for the sole purpose of earning billions of dollars for the manufacturers of war materials and the providers of war services, not only at the cost of the lives of thousands of US servicemen but also at the cost of the financial health of the US State. Along the way, they managed to tear down a functioning state apparatus and replace it with what has essentially been a failed state up to this point that provides almost no reliable basic services to its citizens (water, electricity, telephone, security, education, etc) To add insult to injury, these war criminals decided it was acceptable to authorize torture in US-administered prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. ANY moral high ground that may have existed after the Clinton Administration and 9/11 was completely pissed on then tossed into the shitter by the disgusting policies conducted by the Bush neo-cons.

Suerte,

Rock HardersYour pretty close to where I'm coming from Rock & I appreciate Miami Bob's comments too.

I just watched the President give a security speach, then Chaney gave a rebutle right afterword. Obama in all his brillance choose the Constitution as a back drop to give a major policy speach. I've never seen this before it was brillant he wanted to remind us.

Thats not by accident and the point I've been trying to hammer home. Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the like threw the Constitution out the window and told us were the Government, "We know what's best for You". The President is trying to modrate the tone of America and bring us together as a country. Maybe, just maybe by the time he leaves office the Republicans will revert back to the Goldwater era then they might be worth voting for again.

But even more damageing from my purview is the "Religous Moles" Bush's people appointed that will sit there for life. Judge's and bureaucrats that will sit there hireing more of the same as civil service workers. Its thease people and this line of thinking that will do more damage than 9-11

We've got Rush Limbaugh, (reminds me of Jackson) "Hacking" away at good people and public believes him. The guy's a druggie. And thats been the line of thinking for the last 8 years. That guy and many others, O'Reily comes to mind have been wageing a war on free thinking, open and honest debate. Democracy guys, and thats Freedom.

Exon

Jackson

05-21-09, 16:10

Judge's and bureaucratsSee how it always comes back to judges?

Jackson

05-21-09, 16:23

05-21-09 CRS because it pained me to witness all the hatred and worst aspects of many basically decent people many of who I think of as friends or more than casual acquaintances full of such hate.I agree with you Bob.

I find that the members of the forums at the HuffingtonPost and the MoveOn.org websites to be much more civilized and respectful of the opinions of others.

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

05-21-09, 23:17

Mongers,

Whether or not Exon is liberal or conservative is not important, but either way he is right about the neo-con Republicans that made up the Bush Administration being war criminals and traitors. These people (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and their ilk) are greed-driven religious psychopaths who are no better or less radical or less dangerous than any of the worst inmates at Guantanamo or the mullahs who control Iran. Essentially, the Bush neo-cons started a war of aggression in Iraq for the sole purpose of earning billions of dollars for the manufacturers of war materials and the providers of war services, not only at the cost of the lives of thousands of US servicemen but also at the cost of the financial health of the US State. Along the way, they managed to tear down a functioning state apparatus and replace it with what has essentially been a failed state up to this point that provides almost no reliable basic services to its citizens (water, electricity, telephone, security, education, etc) To add insult to injury, these war criminals decided it was acceptable to authorize torture in US-administered prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. ANY moral high ground that may have existed after the Clinton Administration and 9/11 was completely pissed on then tossed into the shitter by the disgusting policies conducted by the Bush neo-cons.

Suerte,

Rock HardersI'm the only white male I know in the city where I live that was mad as hell when the U. S. went into Iraq in 2003. But what you wrote is total B.S. Maybe you can blame Bush, Cheney, etal for stupidity and faulty intelligence. Or even for wanting to insure that long term there would be oil flowing from Iraq. But going to war "for the sole purpose of earning billions of dollars for the manufacturers of war materials and the providers of war services"? Come on. If they'd gone into Iraq and found WMD's and if the poplulace had greeted us as liberators they'd be heroes to most people. And that's what they expected would happen. Again, you can call them stupid, but your conspiracy theory is about 5X more ridiculous than anything I've ever heard come out of Limbaugh's mouth.

Then you go on to call them war criminals, traitors, greed-driven psychopaths on the same level with terrorists. Again, that's about 5X worse than anything Limbaugh ever said about Clinton etal. How many people were waterboarded? Answer: 3. While I don't like the idea of torture, Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, in the big scheme of things, how big of sins did the Bush administration commit? Cheney and others say thousands of lives, maybe tens of thousands could have been saved by jailing people at Guantanamo or by using agressive interrogation techniques. Maybe they're lying. Maybe they're not. But you have no idea, either way. And Abu Ghraib, while whoever allowed those photos to become public was a complete idiot, I'm sure things like that go on in institutionalized prison settings all over the world, all the time. Yeah, things like that happened in part because the U. S. Military and civilian administrations in Iraq weren't as competent as they should have been. But that's not the same as them being war criminals.

I thought it was ridiculous when Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over things like Lewinsky and Whitewater. And it's ridiculous when people like you want to try the Bush administration for war crimes. I'll say to you what I said to Exon -- if people you support get into office for an extended period of time, the U. S. will become like a banana republic. Like, say, Ecuador, when every time someone loses an election, he either has to go into exile or he's put in prison by the new government.

Rock Harders

05-22-09, 07:28

Tiny12

05-22-09, 18:20

Tiny 12, Mongers, et al-

What is the answer to 99 out of 100 questions concerning politics? Nearly every single US foreign policy decision is made based on the answer to this question. Anyone who believes otherwise is either extremely naive or in total denial. I wish this were not the case.

Suerte,

Rock HardersIf it's a politician that's asking the question, the answer isn't "money". The answer is "whatever will get me the most votes." That's why Obama wants to cut income taxes to "0" for the majority of Americans. And give supersized parts of G. M. And Chrysler to union retirees while cutting out the secured creditors.

As to Iraq, the idea the war was waged so Halliburton and arms manufacturers could profit is ridiculous. There were probably a lot of considerations -- security of U. S. oil supply, the B.S. Iraqi exiles were feeding Cheney et al about weapons of mass destruction and how the Iraqi people would welcome the U. S. Army, and the idea that if we installed a Democratic government in Iraq the rest of the Middle East would follow.

Again, maybe in retrospect you can fault them for being stupid, but the theory that this was orchestrated to benefit large multinational corporations is way out there.

SteveC

06-05-09, 22:52

Obama.

The alternative was too terrible to contemplate, (Palin as president in waiting!) but I'm pretty sure it'll be more of the same.

From William Blum's Anti-Empire report.

To the numerous fans of Barack Obama, on the left, in the middle, on the right, and to the apolitical Obamaniacs, my advice is to read "Being There" by Jerzy Kosinski, or see the film version of the same name starring Peter Sellers.

Also read "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen.

"Men go mad in herds, but only come to their senses one by one." — Charles Mackay, 19th century Scottish journalist

Wild Walleye

06-06-09, 00:03

Obama.

The alternative was too terrible to contemplate, (Palin as president in waiting! But I'm pretty sure it'll be more of the same.I can only hope your post was in jest. If not, you are a complete ass. Please quote me any policy statement that Palin has ever made, on any subject (you have no idea because you are just spouting talking points) You are so fucking clueless that you have no idea what "it" is that you stand for, however, you know it is consistent with what runs on MSNBC.

This isn't about who is more qualified: an under-experienced governor vs. An absolutely inexperienced (sleeper commie) senator. This is about an angry Marxist trying to destroy the single greatest country mankind has ever known.

Gridlock is what McCain / Palin would have brought and that is preferable to dismantling the capitalist system. Gridlock implies no further damage to the fabric of our nation.

Obama is actively and intentionally trying to weaken, if not destroy, the United States. There is no defense of what he is doing and it is beginning to show. His massive, overreaching play will ensure conservative (not Republican) domination for a very, very long time.

What Obama and his radical friends did not learn by reading Salinsky, is that you can not kill the American Spirit, just as one can not destroy matter. America will survive Obama and America will repudiate everything for which he stands (in very short order)

The impending rebound of both conservatism (small govt + personal responsibility) and capitalism will astound almost all spectators. I plan to participate in both and will be far to busy to waste anytime saying 'I told you so' to all you ignorant douche bags that gambled with our nation by voting for Obama for 'the sake of change.' Each and everyone of you cocksuckers (thanks Exon) have done your part to fuck the USA either through ignorance or arrogance. You have done a great nation a disservice and should repent.

MataHari

06-06-09, 10:42

The US, 50% latin? Where would future mongers go? Chinese female ratio is dropping drastically with one child policy. Looks like India or Africa. Imagine future Jacksons and Exons sitting in a cafe in Chennai or Lagos surrounded by Chinese / Japanese mongers! I feel a headache creeping up on me, I need release, can anybody help? I am in Arles in Provence.Chinese, Japanese or Indian mongers travelling the US for fresh flesh wouldnt be that economicly unconcievable, since the USD is actually without their support not worth more than the argentine Peso in 2002 (the US are simply unable to refund their exponentially growing debt) In Argentina, you can witness them overbidding north american mongers. I doubt tho they will ever venture en masse to the northern part of the american continent, since the average undesirability of overweight females intoxicated by castrating feminism, and the hypocritical sexually repressive legal environment constitute perfect monger repellents. They d rather choose Australia or Russia for a taste of genetically preserved pale skinned exotism. Your sisters/mothers/daughters are safe.

Wild Walleye

06-06-09, 13:34

. That gambled with our nation by voting for Obama for 'the sake of change.'Probably would have been more effective if I left out the invective, however, I had had my fill of cavalier attitudes on issues that may have permanent, negative impacts on our lives and those who follow us and may taken a shortcut instead of better articulating the point.

I respect everyone's right to their own opinions, the right of the individual to be ignorant and / or uninformed and, I guess I begrudgingly, I have to accept the individual's right to be cavalier about the future of our nation (but that one kills me) None of these 'conditions' is unique to one party or the other. I think that the cavalier is worse and more dangerous than the ignorant. The country is far too precious to experiment with things like "change for the sake of change" or falling for some sloganeering like "hope and change."

If they have been on medication for a long time, would they just reach into a grab bag of pills and take one at random just for the sake of "change?" After all, they have hope for a cure maybe that will be the resultant change (or maybe it will be terminal, but hey, in that case they won't be around to be suffer the consequences of their poor decision)

Where is the 'hope' for the newly minted unemployed (increased 3.6% from the 5.8% 2008 average to 9.4%) I'm pretty sure that the change they were hoping for wasn't to substitute the unemployment line for the office.

Don't jump in here that it's Bush's fault (blah, blah, blah) Obama inherited an economic mess (we can argue where responsibility belongs) and has proceeded to use fear and intimidation as his tools (must have had to send hope and change out for repair) to explode the national debt for his political agenda--not for the good of the country.

The fact remains that you can not spend and / or borrow your way out of debt. The judicious use of leverage to fuel growth is another story all together and certainly not applicable here.

Miami Bob

06-06-09, 19:09

There are no easy answers. Without stimulous we could have 1930's depression and if we increase debt by huge amounts, then we could a simular but slightly different economic disaster: hyper-inflation when other countries don't want to invest in dollars and will not help us service our debt.

Yes, we are living in interesting times. Many different views of how to fix the situation and there are no easy answers. I may respectfully disaggree with Walley's point of view and maybe WAlley and I might have dialog?

SteveC

06-07-09, 16:36

Wild Walleye,

You even misquoted me in your opening paragraph. Well done! I'm not sure if you noticed but my comments were actually disparaging Obama. I just take it for granted that anyone with half a brain would realise that Palin is an international embarrassment for the USA. There again, I get the impression that the neocons don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks (although their troops are welcome). Such as Cheney talking of "European intellectuals" with a contemptuous smirk on his face. Are european intellectuals worse than US intellectuals? Or is he afraid of all intellectuals?

Anyway Wild Walleye, thanks for the rant, I had a good laugh, but you'll have to get over the fact that Obama won, you lost!

Btw, you asked me to quote "any policy statement that Palin has ever made, on any subject". Here's a link to some of Palin's policies. I have actually read some of them. http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm. Some of them actually make sense.

So, just out of interest, when you describe Obama as "an angry Marxist", can you repay the favour and quote me any policy statement that Obama has ever made that makes him a Marxist. I doubt if you've a clue what a Marxist actually is if you claim that Obama is one, but if you prove me wrong I'll shout my apologies long and loud. Your move.

Wild Walleye

06-07-09, 18:50

I did start with the proviso regarding your angle.

I just take it for granted that anyone with half a brain would realise that Palin is an international embarrassment for the USA.I'd rather be embarrassed than see the country destroyed.

Anyway Wild Walleye, thanks for the rant, I had a good laugh, but you'll have to get over the fact that Obama won, you lost!The whole country lost my friend, as did future generations, ergo my disdain for nonchalance.

when you describe Obama as "an angry Marxist", can you repay the favour and quote me any policy statement that Obama has ever made that makes him a Marxist. I doubt if you've a clue what a Marxist actually is if you claim that Obama is one, but if you prove me wrong I'll shout my apologies long and loud. Your move.Let's start with:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

You're right, I never heard of Marx until I heard his name on right wing radio! I had to go to Wikipedia and look him up. Can you believe we never covered him in college? Harder still to see how I walked away with a major in Econ and did not know who Marx is--but you've found me out. A good minority of my profs were warm to Marx and they all loved Keynes (just wiki'd him too) I also must have been smoking in the boys room when we covered Das Kapital in 10th grade econ. You are onto something though, I am clueless about what anyone with an IQ over 40 would find attractive about Marxism.

SteveC

06-07-09, 19:31

So, "I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody". Doesn't quite make it for a definition of "Angry Marxist". If it was, you'd be sharing the country with a hell of a lot of those critters.

I think I need some more enlightenment from you before I accept your view of him as the "angry Marxist". If you can't, maybe you would withdraw it. I'm sure that you wouldn't want to be the guy who slanders without any justification.

Let's start with:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

You're right, I never heard of Marx until I heard his name on right wing radio! I had to go to Wikipedia and look him up. Can you believe we never covered him in college? Harder still to see how I walked away with a major in Econ and did not know who Marx is--but you've found me out. A good minority of my profs were warm to Marx and they all loved Keynes (just wiki'd him too) I also must have been smoking in the boys room when we covered Das Kapital in 10th grade econ. You are onto something though, I am clueless about what anyone with an IQ over 40 would find attractive about Marxism.

QuakHunter

06-07-09, 21:57

So, "I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody". Doesn't quite make it for a definition of "Angry Marxist". If it was, you'd be sharing the country with a hell of a lot of those critters.

I think I need some more enlightenment from you before I accept your view of him as the "angry Marxist". If you can't, maybe you would withdraw it. I'm sure that you wouldn't want to be the guy who slanders without any justification.Walleye, Who the fuck is this guy thinking you should withdraw your comment? - Truly Yours, Sarah Palin.

The boy doesn't know shit about Marxism or World history, but obviously he must be "enlightened". Love the way he can flippantly espouse a World View of Sarah Palin and then he says you "Slander without any Justification"?

I think he also keyed your car in the parking lot. Are you going to let him get away with that?

I love that enlightened bullshit; every coward I have ever met was enlightened.

Steve C, What the fuck is a NeoCon?

SteveC

06-07-09, 23:19

QuakHunter,

I'm sure I'm not getting the joke here, but as far as I know enlighten means "impart knowledge to", or thereabouts. Every coward you ever met was enlightened? Maybe a private joke between you and Wild Wallace.

As for the meaning of neocon, I'm sure someone with your extensive knowledge of world history and marxism would know this, you're just having a laugh with me aren't you! If not, PM me and I'll explain, I'm sure we can save bandwith on the board rather than discussing it here.

And yes, it was me in the car park.

Wild Walleye

06-08-09, 13:03

1) If my statement, in the abstract was considered to be slander (which I do not consider it to be) it would more than likely fall under the definition of libel, due to the medium through which I communicated my opinion.

However, under the first amendment (not yet suspended by BHO) of the Constitution as interpreted by the Warren Court in NYTimes v. Sullivan, because BHO is a public figure, he would in fact need to prove actual malice on my part in making the statement. There is no malice on my part I am simply calling a (wait, I can probably come up with a better colloquial phrase than that one - even though the origin of that one has nothing to do with race) marxist a marxist.

"As Mr. Justice Brandeis correctly observed, 'sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants.'" From Brennan's opinion.

2) I'll withdraw my comment when proved wrong.

3) I was wondering who keyed my car. Do you know how hard it is to get Ferrari Red imported into Argentina? You have to admit, it is a pretty sweet ride, have you ever seen another '64 Ford Falcon that color? And the mag wheels finish off the look.

MataHari

06-08-09, 18:17

Check this blog and find out how odd similarities are occuring in the news in 1930 and 2009.

http://newsfrom1930.blogspot.com/

Today, O'Bama announced a new New Deal plan to fight unemployment, creating 600,000 government funded jobs. More debt? Who cares. We ll just print more funny money and buy our own bonds.

The US got out of the 1929 crisis thanks to the 40s war economy.

Same causes, same consequences?

SteveC

06-08-09, 20:51

Wild Walleye,

You're right, slander is usually reserved for defamation by oral utterances, in a strictly legal sense, but I was using it in a more general sense, such as in.

"malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name". In this case whether its malicious or defamatory is a matter of opinion, but I'd say its definitely factually false.

So, I'm still not convinced you have an idea what a Marxist is. Maybe you could give us another definition other than "Black Democratic US President"? I'm only asking again because I've got a pretty good idea of what a Marxist is, and I get sick and tired of a bunch of Republicans banding around the word as an insult when they don't have a clue what a Marxist is. IMHO. If you could convince me that he is I'd be delighted to revise my opinion. Always eager to learn.

And yes, a nice ride indeed.

Miami Bob

06-08-09, 22:48

Call you an extreme idiolog with impulse control who makes jackson's politics look more like teddy kennedy's politics than yours. But since you're a great guy, I won't say that.

From a guy who knows what marx wrote about and knows that there is not one marxist in the democratic party[unless they might be undercover] and the bushies took the original neo-conservative ideas and put them into practice in a way that would make most of the original neocon' shudder in horror. Ask Jackson, he studied politcal.

Theory at a top school and understands the difference between Marx, Stalin and Trotsky. Being a politcal moderate or slightly left of center may be offensive to some, but even the Nazi party enjoys the protections of free speach.

Waiting to be flamed. I'm buying the first round on Friday guy!

Wild Walleye

06-09-09, 00:17

. Waiting to be flamed. I'm buying the first round on Friday guy!You know there is no way I can flame you, to whom I owe a debt of honor. It is I that will by the first drink.

Funny coincidence, I am a moderate too!

My conservatism is not neo-conservatism (whatever that term has come to represent) it is based on the same fundamentals as Reagan's: smaller government (focused on national security and the few things that govt can do better than the private sector) personal responsibility and freedom. Nothing more, nothing less.

I love everyone (especially if you have big titties, a tight cooch and no dick)

Fire up the Pisco Sours and Frenet.

Punter 127

06-09-09, 11:55

"Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’.

Obama’s plan to fix the economy through stimulus spending and government intervention to boost companies like General Motors Corp. Has "already failed.”

I’m sure some of you can put a good spin on this, but here's the link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090609/pl_bloomberg/affk5skijh5s

BTW Is it true that "GM" now stands for "Government Motors"?

QuakHunter

06-09-09, 16:35

"Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama's 'Already Failed'.

Obama's plan to fix the economy through stimulus spending and government intervention to boost companies like General Motors Corp. Has "already failed."

I'm sure some of you can put a good spin on this, but here's the link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090609/pl_bloomberg/affk5skijh5s

BTW Is it true that "GM" now stands for "Government Motors"?GM also stands for "Gimme More".

QuakHunter

06-09-09, 16:49

So, I'm still not convinced you have an idea what a Marxist is. Maybe you could give us another definition other than "Black Democratic US President"? I'm only asking again because I've got a pretty good idea of what a Marxist is, and I get sick and tired of a bunch of Republicans banding around the word as an insult when they don't have a clue what a Marxist is. IMHO. If you could convince me that he is I'd be delighted to revise my opinion. Always eager to learn.

And yes, a nice ride indeed.I can't find a place in the recent posts where any of the esteemed posters on either side of the Aisle, especially WW, used the term "Black Democratic US President" in their argument. So congratulations, you get the Sharpton / Jackson / Farrakhan Race Card award! Nice play, SteveC!

Regarding your assertion that my good friend the Wild Fish, (Actually we have not met yet) has no idea what a Marxist is, let me help with a definition from the esteemed, unassailable, 100% accurate, definitive source of the internet, Answers. Com:

Marx-ism: (n) The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Class struggle? Redistribution of wealth? Bourgeois oppression? Classless society?

Wild Walleye does know what he is talking about. He is the smartest man in the whole wide world.

Wild Walleye

06-09-09, 17:20

Wild Walleye does know what he is talking about. He is the smartest man in the whole wide world.Thank you Quak, although I prefer the moniker of "most interesting man in the world."

Hey Lib, you got me, you can see right through to my thinly-veiled redneck and have exposed the burning crosses and lynch mobs lurking in my heart. Damn, I wish I wasn't so transparent.

Here comes another brainless liberal who is calling me a racist because I disagree with a man narrowly (yes I said narrowly) elected, last fall. It isn't racism when liberals call Colin Powell and Condi Rice Uncle Toms but, if someone dares to criticize the Chosen One, it has to be racism and not the fact that I disagree with his policies and actions.

Of course, I can't possibly take issue with a president who has, in his first four months in office, created a deficit that will be larger than those of all prior US presidents combined and who has suspended the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution (Ruth Ginsberg seems to agree with me on this one) and has proposed his own version of suspending habeas corpus (not for detaining Al-Qieda but for people like me who disagree with his policies) Not to mention using good ole fashion Chicago thuggishness in threatening to defame the Chrysler bond holders if they didn't eat the unconstitutional shit sandwich he decided to cram down their throats.

I don't like Sotomayor either (must be anti-latina) can't stand Shumer (must be antisemitic) I respect Colin Powell's service to the country but I think his policy stances suck (racist once again) I think Newhouse is a joke (anti-gay) and I think Gore is a snake-oil salesman (anti-fat white guy and anti-southern-former-bigots) and I think Hillary is horrible (anti-white-dyke)

I am such a hate-filled "bitter clinger" that I just realized I hate myself too.

You clearly don't know me or anything about me. You are just another 'enlightened' liberal who has been 'uneducated' to a point where you can't even articulate your side of an issue.

What was your creative process to come up with that response? Did it go like this: "Duh, I don't know what he said. Duh, I am confused. Wait, I know, you're a racists."

Miami Bob

06-09-09, 17:35

What do you expect him to say. He is preparing for the 2010 elections. At least it appears that we are not headed towards a 1930's depression unless China and India refuse to buy our debt.

I don't personally endorse everything in that stimulus package and GM is a very sticky and impossible situation, unless you just accept the consequences: all gm people out of work and many of their suppliers die. That is another possible path to a 1930's depression.

The specifics of how they are dealing with gm are not perfect and none of the choices are great, but it a whole better than just closing the door at gm, who is unlikely to get the loans that they need to stay in business from a non-governmental source. Or maybe tata motors from india could get gm's assets, then what do we do without an usa auto industry? If that really a good choice? War? I'm sure that china would love to own a strategic asset--like our auto and track manufacturing capacity.

That clearly scares the you know what out of me. This is what the invisible hand of the market would lead to happening---better or worse than O's flawed plan? It is easy to criticize, but all the choices are not great.

Over a generation GM has become non-competitive for more reason's than labor costs. REad comsumer reports reliability surveys--generally gm sells products that fall apart compare to the japanese producers. This has been a long time coming. Labor costs don't help and are definately a part of the problem, but GM has been poorly managed for some time in many ways.

Miami Bob

06-09-09, 17:49

When it comes to chicas--this man knows more than a thing or two.

Walley, I suggest that there is a very easy solution for our disaagreement about Friday night: We can order two rounds at the same time and split them, that way we are both buying the first round. Couldn't all of life be so simple.

After two rounds we can started to figure solutions to all the other impossible problems or get so loaded that we won't care. Either solution is fine by me.

Your internet friend who respects your right to disagree and thinks that the usa is a better place for it--all sorts of points of view getting slowly stirred, not shaken, and then being poured out of congress into a large martini glass with two olives,

Bob

SteveC

06-09-09, 18:11

Wild Walleye

06-09-09, 18:52

Well guys, I sincrely apologise if you think I was calling you racists. The thought never entered my head. I only used the word 'black'in the phrase "Black Democratic US President" to indicate I was referring to Obama. I wouldn't use the term term racist lightly.Nice back pedal but that won't cut it. Your statement is clear. Your hit and then run away from your statements is typical of your ilk.

QuakHunter, you must have telepathic powers to describe me so accurately. "You are just another 'enlightened' liberal who has been 'uneducated' to a point where you can't even articulate your side of an issue".No, it was I that made that made your head spin with that pithy juxtaposition of antonymous concepts.

There must be a new republican policy "Let's make sure our kids stay unenlightened". Your quote from Answers. Com is pretty succinct, but I still can't see Wild Willeye articulating his thought that the president is a Marxist. "Enlightened" means just the opposite. However, since you are "enlightened" you can't understand that. Don't worry, there is a cure.

Enlightened does not equal educated.

Is it only republicans who denigrate íntellectuals (which I am definitely not) and enlightenment? Maybe it endangers their fundamental evangelicism? But let's not get into that.Who's denigrating intellectuals? I'm denigrating dim wits.

How's that song go? "Don't know much 'bout history."

Anyway, whether he won in a landslide or narrowly is irrelevant. He still won!Bet you weren't saying that 2000-2009.

I was not suggesting that the electoral college be ignored or dismantled (as you and your unhinged brethren have done in the past) rather, I was pointing out flash point of the coming conflagration (which you won't notice for years) whereby the nearly half of the American voting populace that voted against BHO will be joined by a large number of those who actually voted for him (whether duped by the state-run media and just susceptible to monotony) in opposing the wholesale dismantling of a country that has done OK for the past couple hundred years.

Please don't take any of this personally, as you should know by now, you more than likely fall into an ethnic group that I despise thus joining good company.

Bob - I am in on starting double-fisted

Damman

06-09-09, 20:38

From USA Today:

One of every six dollars of Americans' income is now coming in the form of a federal or state check or voucher.

Benefits, such as Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance and health care, accounted for 16.2% of personal income in the first quarter of 2009, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That's the highest percentage since the government began compiling records in 1929.

Food stamps. Enrollment hit a record 33.2 million people in March, up 5.2 million from last year. The stimulus law boosted the size of the benefit. Average March benefit: $114 per person.

Social Security. The bad economy has prompted a 10%-15% jump in early retirements, the program's actuary says. A 5.8% increase took effect January 1. Bottom line: $55 billion in new costs.

In all, government spending on benefits will top $2 trillion in 2009 — an average of $17,000 provided to each U. S. Household, federal data show. Benefits rose at a 19% annual rate in the first quarter compared to the last three months of 2008.

Things are not good, 10% of the population on food stamps, schools closing, one in eight residential motgages underwater. WTF gentlemen. Do we just say the hell with everyone else, "I got mine, fuck them?" It is one hell of a statement about what and who we are.

Anyone interested in how we got here?

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082023

SteveC

06-09-09, 20:59

Hey Wild Willeye,

Still waiting for you to justify calling Obama a Marxist. Its an easy slur to make but its a bit like calling Bush / Cheney a pair of fascists, equally wrong. I guess it'll never come so what the hell, let's forget it.

Anyway, my apology is "typical of my ilk"? That made me laugh, for someone concerned with being taken for something he's not, you've made assumptions about me that have been wrong just about every time. And on reflection, I think you must be pretty thin skinned to feel I was calling you a rasict.

I said I wasn't an intellectual, but maybe you are, (and there's nothing to be ashamed about it) using phrases like "pithy juxtaposition of antonymous concepts." Very nice! So, can you help me out with this paragraph you wrote?

" "Enlightened" means just the opposite. However, since you are "enlightened" you can't understand that. Don't worry, there is a cure."

WTF does this mean? Enlightened means just the opposite?

"Enlightened does not equal educated." I know this, I even gave you a good definition of the first word. I just assumed you would know the meaning of educated.

"Denigrating intellectuals?" I wasn't accusing you of that, I was referring to comment in an earlier post in this thread about Cheney, who does denigrate intellectuals. At least european ones.

BTW, remember what proportion of the popular vote Bush / Cheney got in 2000 before running the country? I presume you were equally pissed off then, or was that alright because they were republicans?

QuakHunter

06-10-09, 14:18

Well guys, I sincrely apologise if you think I was calling you racists.Mr. Enlightened one. Take the time and spell correctly. It is "sincerely" and "apologize". If you can spell correctly, which I am sure you can, please take the time to check the post before sending. There is this cool little "preview" button where you can review your post.

QuakHunter, you must have telepathic powers to describe me so accurately. "You are just another 'enlightened' liberal who has been 'uneducated' to a point where you can't even articulate your side of an issue".Take the time to read the prior posts to attribute comments to the proper author. And BTW, I do have telepathic powers. As a matter of fact, I have telekenesis as an additional gift. Just like in Stephen King's Book Carrie and teh movie of the same name. Is your head getting hotter? That's just me.

There must be a new republican policy "Let's make sure our kids stay unenlightened". Your quote from Answers. Com is pretty succinct, but I still can't see Wild Willeye articulating his thought that the president is a Marxist.Again, it's "Walleye", even though he uses his "Willeye" in Bs. Aires. And regarding his assertion on Obama's intentions:

Marx-ism: (n) The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Whether it's healthcare, education, free cheese it still fits the definition. And Robin Hood did not hide his intentions.

In fact, thanks for the praise, I'd be proud to be considered enlightened, as in (from dictionary. Com)

1. To give intellectual or spiritual light to; instruct; impart knowledge to: We hope the results of our research will enlighten our colleagues.

2. Archaic. To shed light upon.

Is it only republicans who denigrate íntellectuals (which I am definitely not) and enlightenment? Maybe it endangers their fundamental evangelicism? But let's not get into that.Mr. Enlightenment, I hope I don't hurt your feelings with my opinion that you are not a spiritual or intellectual source of light. (And the fact that I do not believe anyone is praising you)

Anyway, whether he won in a landslide or narrowly is irrelevant. He still won!True. 52% for Obama in 2008; 51% for Bush in 2004.

And he was attacked by your "ilk" for eight years. What is different now?

In the Immortal words of the great chicken philosopher, Foghorn Leghorn; "Put them books down Boy, we're going Fishin'"

SteveC

06-10-09, 19:22

Well Mr Confused One,

Confused is an antonym to enlightened, as I'm sure you know. I would think that would be apt for someone of "your ilk" who apparently hates the concept of enlightenment.

You certainly caught me out. I spelt sincerely wrong. On the other hand, where I come from apologise is the correct spelling. And if I wanted to be pedantic, I could recommend that, in your own words, you.

" take the time to check the post before sending. There is this cool little "preview" button where you can review your post."

If you'd done that you would have discovered that your spelling of "teh movie" is actually spelt "the movie". But thanks for the pointer, if I post again I'll use that function.

If you don't think that I'm " a spiritual or intellectual source of light", then stop describing me as such, or are you truly confused? Someone could get the impression that you do think I'm enlightened if you describe me that way so often.

Finally, I suspect that you don't genuinely think that Obama is a Marxist; that half-assed explanation you gave, in the words of your buddy Wild Walleye, just won't cut it.

I'm leaving tomorrow for a couple of weeks camping in Barriloche before things get much colder, so I'll be out of touch. If you've any more comments, afraid you'll have to wait until I get back for a response.

Wild Walleye

06-10-09, 21:14

Finally, I suspect that you don't genuinely think that Obama is a Marxist; that half-assed explanation you gave, in the words of your buddy Wild Walleye, just won't cut it. I can only speak for myself and I do believe it.

I am not interested in converting you (read some of my other spot-on, big-tent, mind-expanding, self-loathing posts) If you do not think that any of the examples of BHO's behavior and statements, cited herein, constitute a Marxist philosophy then it isn't worth the effort. Again, you are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to disagree with them (for now at least)

I'm leaving tomorrow for a couple of weeks camping in Barriloche before things get much colder, so I'll be out of touch. If you've any more comments, afraid you'll have to wait until I get back for a response.Enjoy, that's God's country. Wait, I mean that is an area created by purely natural forces that we do not understand. I hope you have a great trip. Try posting about some mongering experiences when you get back, if you don't freeze your dick off whilst camping.

Wild Walleye

06-10-09, 21:30

Please note:

The antonym of enlightened is "enlightened." If need be, I can explain it when you buy Bob (referee) and me a drink.

I am neither an intellectual nor "enlightened" which I proudly prove on a daily basis.

I am the reflection of many experiences both in and out of class rooms (emphasis on out, despite my degrees). I am the wildcat well digger who can read and turn a phrase. I am generous when times are good and able to find and share inspiration, when I hit a dry well. I have been around and seen many things. I also realize, that I haven't even scratched the surface of what I have yet to experience.

Sinistra

06-10-09, 23:53

Again, you are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to disagree with them (for now at least)Seriously, I'm not really sure why people engage in these threads. Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything and everyone just ends up getting mad. Maybe some guys really like working their underwear up into a bunch. Personally, I find it unpleasant and uncomfortable, and no reason to ruin my mood. I wonder how Rule 34 applies to bunched up underwear.

QuakHunter

06-11-09, 11:22

The name of the thread is: "America Politics During the Obama Administration". That is why I am talking about "America Politics During the Obama Administration".

The threads about women are more fun and entertaining. But political discourse is fun and entertaining and I get to make people mad.

I am actually a semi-principled monger first, and I kind of like getting my underwear bunched up. I'll post that experience in the new thread "Bunched up underwear is the only thing coming near my ass".

Seriously, I'm not really sure why people engage in these threads. Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything and everyone just ends up getting mad. Maybe some guys really like working their underwear up into a bunch. Personally, I find it unpleasant and uncomfortable, and no reason to ruin my mood. I wonder how Rule 34 applies to bunched up underwear.

Jackson

06-11-09, 19:18

Seriously, I'm not really sure why people engage in these threads. Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything and everyone just ends up getting mad. Maybe some guys really like working their underwear up into a bunch. Personally, I find it unpleasant and uncomfortable, and no reason to ruin my mood. I wonder how Rule 34 applies to bunched up underwear.Because sometimes it's interesting to read other people's opinions.

El Alamo

06-21-09, 13:07

At the beginning of the Obama Administration we were told that if we immediately enacted the Obama stimulus program unemployment would peak at between 8% and 9%. If the Obama economic stimulus program was not enacted we were told that unemployment would go through the roof.

We enacted the Obama economic stimulus program and are now being told by Obama himself that unemployment will reach 10% this year and may rise from there.

Some member on this board, much to their credit, stated back in February that Obama's so-called stimulus program was only a method to increase the size, power and influence of government. The economy and, specifically, unemployemt levels were not going to be positively affected by the Obama 'lets have big government' stimulus plan.

The simple fact is that the government cannot competively manufacture a single pencil, a single mousetrap or a single piece of candy. All money that goes to government programs is money down a rathole.

What would have worked? What would have worked is what Reagon did. Lower taxes on businesses so that businesses are not forced to lay off workers. Lower taxes on working people so working people have more disposible income.

The Obama stimulus program has put future generations of Americans into an unsustainable debt position without creating a single new job. The millions of new paperpushers that Obama is funding are worth less than a warm bowl of piss.

But what do you expect from somebody who has never had a real job in his lifetime?

The fact is that government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.

P.S. I shutter to think what would happen to todays economy if we had over 10% unemployment, over 10% inflation and 20% interest rates (for those with a short memory, this is what Reagon had and Reagon never whined and complained about the hand he was dealt)

Punter 127

06-21-09, 15:24

El Alamo your points are well made, I recently reviewed some remarks by Charles Krauthammer that in many ways echo and expand your comments.

However I personally think Obama is much worse than either of you has made him out to be, and that's scary as hell!

Subj: Charles Krauthammer Speech / Comments on the ‘New Economy ’ and Barack Obama.

To my friends & associates:

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned and articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even two Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not ‘drunk the Kool-Aid ’, feel free.

A summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a ‘cool customer ’ who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's ‘behind the mask ’. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit t hem. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can ’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to ‘level the playing field ’ with income redistribution and punishment of the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid.

5. He ’s surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever run even a candy store. But they ’re going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can ’t work in the long run. Obama ’s not a socialist; rather a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the USA, more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalence in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He ’s now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not ‘come due ’ until after he ’s reelected in 2012. He ’d like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We are ‘pining ’ for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. He believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in Feb. Are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and information if she ’s to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and states ’ rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible & outrageous. We ’re spending trillions that we don ’t have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus pkg. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman Brothers failed. Fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of ‘change ’ caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy.

I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There ’s a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we are right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's too late. I’m sure someone will come up with a reason to disregard Mr. Krauthammer remarks, but I don ’t think you can label him a "Republican activist", and I don ’t think he ’s "preparing for the 2010 elections" perhaps he ’s just a concerned American.

Oh but wait; he's been on Fox news, maybe you left wing nuts can hang your hat on that.

StrayLight

06-22-09, 00:59

yada yada yada
blah blah blah
whine whine whineWhat you guys are overlooking are several key points:

1. Obama is where he is because the Republican Party so thoroughly screwed the pooch during previous eight years.

2. Many people (like me) might -- just might -- have given the Republican Party another chance under the leadership of John McCain, had McCain not chosen the clueless airhead he chose to be his VP nominee.

3. Since Obama's election, literally no one in the Republican Party has said one word -- not even a syllable -- indicating an iota of potential for leading the nation in a better manner or direction than Obama is doing.

If you want to make policy and lead the nation, you have to win elections. And if you want to win elections, you have to do a whole hell of a lot better than the Republicans have done or are doing.

My own view is that the Republican Party is where the Democratic Party was in 1968. It's pretty intellectually and morally bankrupt, and it's going to take more than just some charismatic individual to turn the tide. It needs an entire retooling from the ground up. That's going to take some serious time and effort, and no one I see appears willing to admit it.

Jackson

06-22-09, 05:56

3. Since Obama's election, literally no one in the Republican Party has said one word -- not even a syllable -- indicating an iota of potential for leading the nation in a better manner or direction than Obama is doing.Hi SL,

I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said, but tonight I'm only going to address just this one of your fables.

Since the election I've read and watched countless Republication politicians, Republication strategists, editorial columnists, news analysts and other pundits offer up a steady stream of advice for the direction of the country.

These ideas have included:

- An income tax cut that actually would stimulate the economy starting with the next payday.

- Keeping the fully functioning terrorist containment facility at Guantanamo Bay that is protecting our country.

- Shooting down every North Korean test missile as it lifts off the pad.

- Standing up to the unions by not spending $500,000 dollars each to save UAW jobs.

- Showing strength and resolve by standing tall and not apologizing to countries to whom we owe no apology.

- Living within our financial limitations by not authorizing the expenditure of huge amounts of money that we just don't have.

The problem that the American media, in their slobbering adoration of the Messiah, simply isn't letting these opinions be heard. For example, author Mark Levin's book titled "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" has been #1 on the New York Time's best seller list for 12 weeks, yet this author has NEVER been interviewed about his book by any liberal newspapers or television networks in the entire country.

Thanks,

Jackson

Rock Harders

06-22-09, 07:31

Mongers,

Everybody on this forum knows that I am a far-left wing Obama supporter who is the anti-Jackson. However, the bottom line with the stimulus is that it is complete shit. All it is doing is further bankrupting a bankrupt US Treasury and further expanding a useless US federal government. The bottom line is that if the government cannot at least break even on its finances, it needs to downsize. Neither political party is willing to accept this reality when they can simply delay the inevitable by printing money and devaluing the earnings and savings of the US populace. There may have been a day when the Republicans stood for small government and fiscal responsibility, but that day passed many moons ago (certainly more than 20 years ago) and it is the Republican neo-con scumbags who took a Clinton-era SURPLUS and turned it into a massive budget deficit. I am a believer in a universal free healthcare system but the money to pay for it has to come by eliminating existing government programs / agencies. Eliminate the Federal Department of Labor; every state has its own department of labor. The same goes with the Department of Education and the National Park Service; let the state agencies deal with education and caring for the parks. Literally, billions of dollars of taxpayer funds are wasted on a yearly basis on government agencies that serve almost no purpose and are a complete waste of money and energy. The DEA is another example of a useless government agency. Billions of dollars are spent to take 1% of the drugs coming into the US off the streets. The government should legalize, regulate, and tax the drugs which would raise revenue while at the same time eliminate billions in wasteful spending.

The bottom line is that the US federal government is a disgustingly inefficient and oversized behemoth that, much like the windows operating system, is collapsing in on itself. No US politician has any fucking balls; if they did they would tell the people the truth, which is that the government doesn't need more money, it needs to simply cut the size of itself in half and stop wasting the taxpayer's dollar.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Wild Walleye

06-22-09, 12:16

Pick up any of his books (except the one about the dog) and learn a little something about the US, the Constitution and politics from one of the very best.

RH-you hit the nail on the head. Decrease the size and reach of the govt. Don't increase it!

A good place to start would be to stop the TARP and other BS phony stimulus now, cancel all unnecessary open and yet to be started programs. Cut as many federal agencies as possible and mandate that each cabinet post eliminate 20% of its budget. Put PRIVATE SECTOR performance and accountability into the government. Perform and / or produce or hit the unemployment line. Reward those that do more with less.

Cut taxes, spur growth, hold money supply constant, reduce the deficit and national debt to sustainable levels.

Get the national 'brain' focused on the fact that it is not the government's money, it is ours.

Mongers-

Everybody on this forum knows that I am a far-left wing Obama supporter who is the anti-Jackson. However, the bottom line with the stimulus is that it is complete shit. All it is doing is further bankrupting a bankrupt US Treasury and further expanding a useless US federal government. The bottom line is that if the government cannot at least break even on its finances, it needs to downsize. Neither political party is willing to accept this reality when they can simply delay the inevitable by printing money and devaluing the earnings and savings of the US populace. There may have been a day when the Republicans stood for small government and fiscal responsibility, but that day passed many moons ago (certainly more than 20 years ago) and it is the Republican neo-con scumbags who took a Clinton-era SURPLUS and turned it into a massive budget deficit. I am a believer in a universal free healthcare system but the money to pay for it has to come by eliminating existing government programs / agencies. Eliminate the Federal Department of Labor; every state has its own department of labor. The same goes with the Department of Education and the National Park Service; let the state agencies deal with education and caring for the parks. Literally, billions of dollars of taxpayer funds are wasted on a yearly basis on government agencies that serve almost no purpose and are a complete waste of money and energy. The DEA is another example of a useless government agency. Billions of dollars are spent to take 1% of the drugs coming into the US off the streets. The government should legalize, regulate, and tax the drugs which would raise revenue while at the same time eliminate billions in wasteful spending.

The bottom line is that the US federal government is a disgustingly inefficient and oversized behemoth that, much like the windows operating system, is collapsing in on itself. No US politician has any fucking balls; if they did they would tell the people the truth, which is that the government doesn't need more money, it needs to simply cut the size of itself in half and stop wasting the taxpayer's dollar.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Tiny12

06-22-09, 20:12

Rock Harders, Your last post makes a lot of sense. I owe you an apology for ragging on you every time I had the chance.

StrayLight

06-23-09, 23:41

Hi SL,

I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said, but tonight I'm only going to address just this one of your fables.

Since the election I've read and watched countless Republication politicians, Republication strategists, editorial columnists, news analysts and other pundits offer up a steady stream of advice for the direction of the country.

These ideas have included:

- An income tax cut that actually would stimulate the economy starting with the next payday.

- Keeping the fully functioning terrorist containment facility at Guantanamo Bay that is protecting our country.

- Shooting down every North Korean test missile as it lifts off the pad.

- Standing up to the unions by not spending $500,000 dollars each to save UAW jobs.

- Showing strength and resolve by standing tall and not apologizing to countries to whom we owe no apology.

- Living within our financial limitations by not authorizing the expenditure of huge amounts of money that we just don't have.

The problem that the American media, in their slobbering adoration of the Messiah, simply isn't letting these opinions be heard. For example, author Mark Levin's book titled "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" has been #1 on the New York Time's best seller list for 12 weeks, yet this author has NEVER been interviewed about his book by any liberal newspapers or television networks in the entire country.

Thanks,

JacksonHi Jackson,

When I read a statement like this, I wonder how it is that you've been able to find crack to smoke down here while I haven't:

- An income tax cut that actually would stimulate the economy starting with the next payday.Dude, we just finished eight years of the lowest income taxes in living history. If income tax cuts were a panacea and the key to stimulating the economy, we'd be buying and selling the cities of China at this point. The reason Obama is in office and Republicans are licking dog shit out of the gutters is because most Americans understand a bit about reality (which most Republicans obviously don't).

That particular statement of yours is simply garbage that ranks up there with the equally ridiculous notion you used to espouse that our invasion of Iraq was George Bush's brilliant strategy to draw Al Queda into a place where we could kill them all. And the really sad part is....that particular statement was actually the best of the six you wrote. LOL!

...author Mark Levin's book titled "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" has been #1 on the New York Time's best seller list for 12 weeks, yet this author has NEVER been interviewed about his book by any liberal newspapers or television networks in the entire country.

Mark Levin simply needs a new publicist. (Or does he think he "entitled" to be interviewed just because his book is a current best seller?)

Again, there's lots about Obama and his policies that I and many like me don't particularly support. It's just that he beats the living piss out of what we've had for the past eight years, and what the Republicans seem to be able to muster as counterpoints.

You're welcome,

Straylight

Jackson

06-23-09, 23:59

Dude, we just finished eight years of the lowest income taxes in living history. If income tax cuts were a panacea and the key to stimulating the economy, we'd be buying and selling the cities of China at this point.SL,

We had 7+ years of unprecented economic growth during the Bush Presidency and those tax cuts, growth that might still be happening if it hadn't been for Democrat's bomb in the form of policies requiring banks to lower borrowing standards for home buyers.

and Republicans are licking dog shit out of the gutters. That kind of language is not necessary or welcome.

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

06-24-09, 19:02

Dude, we just finished eight years of the lowest income taxes in living history. If income tax cuts were a panacea and the key to stimulating the economy, we'd be buying and selling the cities of China at this point. The reason Obama is in office and Republicans are licking dog shit out of the gutters is because most Americans understand a bit about reality (which most Republicans obviously don't)You've got that backwards. China is kicking ass, among other reasons, because (a) their maximum marginal income tax rate on businesses is 25% , versus 35% to 48% in the U. S. and (b) The Chinese government is run by engineers while the U. S. Government is run by lawyers like Obama.

I agree that you can't say that good economic performance immediately and directly follows from tax cuts. But it is fair to say that the tax cuts passed during the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush administrations have improved the economy. Our economy over decades past has grown faster than Europe's, unemployment is lower here, and with a couple of exceptions, being Norway and Luxembourg, per capita GDP is higher here after adjusting for purchasing power. I believe that resulted directly from lower taxes.

Jackson's point about lowering taxes to get us through a recession was spot on. The government has two levers of fiscal policy, lowering taxes and increasing spending. If taxes are lowered, it leaves money with individuals and businesses, who are going to spend it more efficiently than government. Obama and Congress increased spending, but from what I understand (and I haven't been following this closely) it's mostly for pork and won't be spent until 2010 and 2011, that is, until we'll probably be out of the recession! How much sense does that make?

Dodger Bulldog

06-25-09, 03:22

You've got that backwards. China is kicking ass, among other reasons, because (a) their maximum marginal income tax rate on businesses is 25% , versus 35% to 48% in the U. S. And (be) The Chinese government is run by engineers while the U. S. Government is run by lawyers like Obama.As one who currently lives in China, I can attest that you left out all of the salient factors, apparently in order to push your personal political agenda:

1. Most Chinese companies are complete monopolies and pay close to slave wages. Thus, at the sole expense of the billion workers, their cost of production is virtually irrelevant.

2. China is not a free country. When the government wants to assist a business they just hand over billions, or bulldoze a community away. They push all other interests aside with no concern for whatever the cost or disruption is to the general population.

3. The government and businesses in China have absolutely no regard for protecting the health and safety of the workers.

4. Product safety is non-existent. Consider baby formula tainted with melamine to increase its readings for "protein" content; lead paint used on children's toys, which leads to mental retardation; poisonous dogfood, etc.

5. China has no concern whatsoever for the environment. The cities have some of the worst air polluton in the world, and both raw industrial sewage and human and animal waste are dumped daily into its rivers, lakes, and the sea. We receive regular warnings never to eat the local seafood nor venture into the beaches of the South China Sea.

Even the local bottled water has been found to be contaminated, so I will only drink imported bottled water.

6. Religious freedom and political dissent remain extremely oppressed in order to eliminate or at least control the possibility of the people being able to communicate and organize to advance their own interests. If all else fails, we have seen that the government will unleash its tanks on the people.

In fact, the government has now mandated that all computers sold after July 1 must have the spy program "Green Dam" installed so that it can monitor everyone's web activity and email. It is expected that a similar program for mobile phones is soon to follow. This kind of reminds me of the wiretapping program in the U. S. that intercepted every phone call and text message under the guise of fighting "terrorism."

For those of you who despise the ACLU and wish to crush all civil liberties, you should come check out the results. You just might like it here.

No serious, informed person would deny any of the above items.

So please get real.

It is sheer nonsense to assert that the growth of of the economy in China has anything to do with the "marginal tax rate." Don't take it personal, but that has to be one of the most ignorant political statements ever uttered!

Rather, it has everything to do with a total disregard of the Communist system for anything resembling the concept of freedom, nor of any concern for the quality of the peoples' lives - all in a single-minded pursuit of enormous profits and power.

Hmmmm.

This totalitarian Communist society, with its low "marginal income tax rate on business," sounds exactly like a wet dream come true for the extremist laissez faire capitalists of America!

DB

Tmontana

06-25-09, 11:50

I am too busy stashing away fractional gold maple leafs to give a shit about that asscrack Obama or any Americano for that matter. I am silently waiting (ok - not silent here) for the roof to cave in on the USA. It can't happen soon enough.:) I will then march into Florida (or roll in in a Chevy 3500 diesel dually 4x4) and buy a nice place on the chain of lakes near Orlando. Maybe I'll hire some americano's to clean my pool and sweep my sidewalks and - oh - perhaps use Americano's to "bait swim" in the lake so the gators leave my precious doggies alone when they chose to wet their little paws:)

Remeber - the whole world knows - you can't treat an Americano too lightly or they will take advantage of you and try to tell you how to run yo' life. Best to beat them at EVERY opportunity to remind them of who de boss! Dat way dey keeps in line. Can't nevah beat yo' americano to much. Besides - dey LIKES it. Dats Right - dey do!

"An american, you wife and an old oak tree - the more you beats dem de better dey be"

Stan Da Man

06-25-09, 12:19

I am too busy stashing away fractional gold maple leafs to give a shit about that asscrack obama or any Americano for that matter. I am silently waiting (ok - not silent here) for the roof to cave in on the USA. It can't happen soon enough.:) I will then march into Florida (or roll in in a Chevy 3500 diesel dually 4x4) and buy a nice place on the chain of lakes near orlando. Maybe I'll hire some americano's to clean my pool and sweep my sidewalks and - oh - perhaps use Americano's to "bait swim" in the lake so the gators leave my precious doggies alone when they chose to wet their little paws:)

Remeber - the whole world knows - you can't treat an Americano too lightly or they will take advantage of you and try to tell you how to run yo' life. Best to beat them at EVERY opportunity to remind them of who de boss! Dat way dey keeps in line. Can't nevah beat yo' americano to much. Besides - dey LIKES it. Dats Right - dey do!

"An american, you wife and an old oak tree - the more you beats dem de better dey be"LOL. I'm not quite sure what your point is other than turning the tables, but I got a good laugh.

Tiny12

06-25-09, 13:48

I'm not sure what this has to do with tax cuts and the American economy, but if you want to argue, I'll argue.

As one who currently lives in China, I can attest that you left out all of the salient factors, apparently in order to push your personal political agenda:

1. Most Chinese companies are complete monopolies and pay close to slave wages. Thus, at the sole expense of the billion workers, their cost of production is virtually irrelevant. DBI don't live in China but have looked at Chinese companies. Your first sentence is absolutely not true. There's lots and lots of competition in China, it's cut-throat and margins in many instances are low. About slave wages, look at the worker wages and conditions in China versus, say, India. While by your standards, those of a rich American, they may be slave wages, they're not compared to any other country that 30 years ago was at the same level of economic development as China was 30 year ago. Your comment about "slave wages" is something used by the American left to justify catering to their labor union masters. The union leaders would prefer that people in 3rd world countries remain unemployed so their members in the U S can keep their low paying jobs, instead of moving onto more productive work.

3. The government and businesses in China have absolutely no regard for protecting the health and safety of the workers.

4. Product safety is non-existent.

5. China has no concern whatsoever for the environment. DB3, 4 and 5 are all true. Like lower taxes on business, all these cause the cost of business to be lower in China than in many other places. Lower costs mean more more money to re-invest and grow business, a higher economic growth rate, more employment, and higher wages. So I agree, along with lower taxes they contribute to economic growth.

In my post, I said AMONG OTHER REASONS, China is kicking ass because of lower tax rates and BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY ENGINEERS. I'd guess that these conditions you describe exist in part because the country is run by engineers, unfortunately with no checks and balances.

I agree with you there should be checks and balances on the environment, safety, etc. However, like me, you view the world based on your own experiences. If you're a farmer in rural China struggling to survive, a salary of $3,000 (or about $12,000 adjusted for purchasing power) working 6 days a week in a polluted city might be a very good option.

6. Religious freedom and political dissent remain extremely oppressed in order to eliminate or at least control the possibility of the people being able to communicate and organize to advance their own interests. If all else fails, we have seen that the government will unleash its tanks on the people.

In fact, the government has now mandated that all computers sold after July 1 must have the spy program "Green Dam" installed so that it can monitor everyone's web activity and email. It is expected that a similar program for mobile phones is soon to follow. This kind of reminds me of the wiretapping program in the U. S. That intercepted every phone call and text message under the guise of fighting "terrorism."

For those of you who despise the ACLU and wish to crush all civil liberties, you should come check out the results. You just might like it here.

DBYou assume anyone who espouses liberal economic policies, like me, is automatically someone who's anti civil liberties. That's not true. You couldn't be further from the truth. Furthermore that applies to just about every Republican or Libertarian on this board -- we're mongers, and we don't appreciate the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. If you're saying spying on the citizenry and supressing religious freedom and political dissent produces faster economic growth, you're wrong about that too.

It is sheer nonsense to assert that the growth of of the economy in China has anything to do with the "marginal tax rate." Don't take it personal, but that has to be one of the most ignorant political statements ever uttered! DBO. K. Don't take it personally, but your statement above sounds ignorant to me. As does what you say later about Communist China being a capitalist's wet dream. If you think China could tax business at the same rates as, say, the U. S. and still grow at 8% to 10% a year, well, that's not right. As you point out with your statements about the environment, health and safety, etc., it's all about the cost of doing business. And higher taxes, like other costs, reduce the amount of money that businesses can re-invest in growth. I never said China was a Utopia, I never said I'd rather live there than the U. S. I said it's kicking ass (economically) And, AMONG OTHER REASONS, it's because of lower taxes on business.

By the way, neither you or I even touched on the one or two most important reasons why economic growth in China is faster than the U.S.

Tmontana

06-26-09, 02:24

If I saw street bums in BsAs each with their own copy of Atlas Shrugged I'd be encouraged. If I saw even one US street bum reading a copy I'd running screaming happy thoughts in the street.

Trouble is it will always be easier for people to take from others what they need rather than expend the time, labor and resources to produce something. Humans are lazy. Government s are worse and ALL descend into tyranny over time.

That being said, it is true the Chinese economy is run my technocrats while the USA is run by bureaucrats. Economics is not an exact science.

It is also true that the Chinese economy has little taxation of it from a US perspective. While you could argue the US experience has more past positives than the chinese experience there can be no argument that the Chinese have the resources to change their social welfare for the better while the USA can not afford the social welfare it has.

Guns and Ammo, Gold and Silver, Liberty over Monopolistic Power, Right not wrong.

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/c3kZgM8-The-Four-Stages-of-Revolution-Part-1-of-2

BadMan

06-26-09, 15:37

Sidney,

Don't you lose respect for yourself when you post this garbage?

Seriously man.

You wanna post links to reputable websites, please go ahead.

You wanna give your overly biased opinions, please go ahead.

But posting spam emails that are complete bullshit is beneath you.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Please provide the direct link to ASSOCIATED PRESS or STFU.

Regards,

BM

Thomaso276

06-26-09, 16:05

We all know that Pres. Obama was born on Krypton.

Seriously, it's results that count. My take: so far, so good.

Esten

06-27-09, 01:07

Tiny12

06-27-09, 13:52

Human greed and desire for wealth and power is too strong to allow capitalism to go insufficiently regulated. The widening income inequality and consumer abuses over the past decade point to the need for more government involvement, not less.Nobody is going to disagree with your first statement.

About your second one, are you talking about the U. S.? If so, after the last election, now that the plaintiff's bar controls the national government, what's the problem? The biggest consumer abusers in the U. S. are lawyers, not capitalists. Examples from the present and past: private planes, silicone breast implants, hurricane insurance, and obstetricians. These products or individuals from time to time have been high-priced, unavailable, in short supply, or driven out of business in the U. S. because of the lawyers, like the ones who today control the Democratic Party.

As to the widening income inequality and government involvement, that's something that Tmontana and Sidney have replied to below much more articulately than I ever could. It sounds like you want government to level the playing field, via socialism or communism. That's a recipe for stagnation.

Esten

06-27-09, 15:48

Gee, one mention of favoring more government involvement and I'm accused of possibly supporting communism. That's pretty funny!

Tiny12

06-27-09, 16:55

Gee, one mention of favoring more government involvement and I'm accused of possibly supporting communism. That's pretty funny!Agreed. In the last two weeks I got screwed by a lawyer and had to pay estimated taxes, so I took it out on you.

Esten

06-27-09, 23:57

Sorry to hear that. And I agree with you, the legal system in the US is in serious need of reform on many levels (abuse, costs, fairness, etc). That's another example of increased government involvement I would support (by involvement I don't necessarily mean ownership; in this case more regulation, policy change and enforcement). The issues here are too big and deep for anyone but the government to effectively tackle it, and then it would not be easy by any means. Unfortunately I do not see it on the horizon.

El Alamo

07-02-09, 07:06

I hate to say it and I may be dead wrong, but we may be witnessing history. Obama may be, in front of our eyes, evolving into a President less effective than the infamous Jimmy 'shit for brains' Carter.

A few observations.

1) Advocating the stunningly stupid plan of raising taxes to spur an economic recovery.

2) Sounding like a third grade retard whenever the telepromptor is off.

3) Refusing to support the world´s condemnation of Iran's phoney election, but immediately supporting Chavez's corrupt buddy in Hondoras.

4) And my favorite, falling for the man made global warming nonsense when even a one celled amoeba can tell there is no science to support it.

Trebek

07-06-09, 23:43

I heard on the radio last week that his approval rating was still at 60 percent?

If you have something other than from the conservative tabloids (newsmax) please post it.

'Less effective that Jimmy Carter'

Sshyeah. I guess some areas may not be hit like an atomic explosion by the recovery package. I do not mean by jobs created or lost, but driving anywhere in the USA to witness the massive, efficient construction projects going on and can not help but wonder.

Or to see the repair work occuring for the USA's image from the Chicago Olympic Bid to the current Russia meeting to the G8 summit and meeting with Hugo Chavez.

Passing the Public Health insurance option will not occur without a seismic, permanent shift. No pain, no gain on that one but 1/6 of the American economy reformed.

Jackson

07-09-09, 18:16

I agree with Colonel Bud Day (Medal of Honor recipient)

I believe that the definition of torture is the infliction of physical pain.

Scaring the hell out of a subject by simulating drowning and/or using other enhanced interrogation techniques may be distasteful to the recipient and to the squeamish amongst you, but it is not physical pain.

By this definition, the USA is not a "torture nation".

However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".

They're just wrong.

Wake up people. We're in a war. Our enemies have vowed to destroy us.

There's only one thing you can do with a rabid dog.

Thanks,

Jackson

Toymann

07-10-09, 03:25

This type of retoric will continue till the US wakes up and recognizes that they really FU*KED Up when they elected the most popular university professor as the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD. I'm hoping that we're currently on a three year glide path to getting rid of this clown. That said, in no way be surprised at anything this wild-ass liberal, inexperienced clown says in the next three years. Like the iceburg, 80% of this idiot is hidden below the surface. Stay tuned for more crazy statements from "Abomination". I'm guessing in the end most of his legacy will be easily un-done once he's gone. Viva la difference! Given enough rope he will soon be swinging from the gallows. Patience is the key to understanding. This soon will pass.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Giovanni B

07-10-09, 09:38

However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".Well, what our President is doing to my country is scaring the hell out of me. Does that fall within the Liberal definition of torture.

Daddy Rulz

07-10-09, 12:13

We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Taking nothing from Bud Day of course, but this is the legal definition we (USA USA USA) accepted when we signed this agreement. However as a tolerant liberal I of course advocate you having the right to believe as you do.

I agree with Colonel Bud Day (Medal of Honor recipient)

I believe that the definition of torture is the infliction of physical pain.

Scaring the hell out of a subject by simulating drowning and / or using other enhanced interrogation techniques may be distasteful to the recipient and to the squeamish amongst you, but it is not physical pain.

By this definition, the USA is not a "torture nation".

However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".

They're just wrong.

Wake up people. We're in a war. Our enemies have vowed to destroy us.

There's only one thing you can do with a rabid dog.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

07-10-09, 12:41

El Queso

07-11-09, 05:05

The Geneva Convention, according to the Wikipedia summary "require[s] the ratifying parties to repress grave breaches of the conventions." Of course, that leaves somewhat open to interpretation of how far one can go before it's considered "real" (grave) torture prohibited by the convention.

As well, as the Wikipedia states, "Nearly all 200 countries of the world are 'signatory' nations, in that they have ratified these conventions." In addition, the Convention calls for prohibition against "taking of hostages; extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" and so on. But how many countries that we have problems with follow those rules either?

I am on the fence. I like the idea, as an ideal, that we should not "lower ourselves" to their level. But I also think that if there were truly need to do such things as waterboarding to get information that would save innocent and / or military lives, that it needs to be considered.

I would never be comfortable with "real" life-damaging or body-damaging torture, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for any jackass with his extreme views AND actions being a bit mentally perturbed in the act of trying to weed out the human garbage that he and his buddies represent.

I also know that the government is very hard to stop - that if something gets going it's too easy for the lines to get blurred. Humans all up and down the chain give it a certainty of something happening that takes things too far.

Ain't nothing black and white.

El Alamo

07-11-09, 09:19

I say we do one of these sign and trade deals like the NBA. We can take Obama and cap n trade him for Chavez and still come in under the salary cap. Even Chavez can't possibly spend as recklessly as Obama and Nancy "Marsh Mouse" Pelosi. Plus, Chavez is Latino, a better bowler than Obama and likely has a better three point shot while liquored up. Doesn't smoke the cheap stuff either. Plus his girlfriends aren't ugly, mean spirited, racist transvestite looking drill sergeants with a landing strip.

In addition, the First Lady (who wasted half a mil on a date night to fricking NYC of all places) could probably be included in the deal and shipped to the WNBA to replace Lisa Leslie as the chic fashion plate that can no longer score at any level. Sarkozy's wife is WAY hotter anyway.

If Mrs Obama wants a date night, she should go back and see her husbands hometown in Kenya, where he was born.

Daddy Rulz

07-11-09, 12:51

Daddy, I am always amused when the liberals like to trot out the Geneva Convention. I am at a loss to understand how the current conflict (or past conflicts for that matter) have "rules". "Rules" we must follow but permit the opponent to ignore. I can assure you the people who gathered in a very civilized, secure, and peaceful venue to sign the convention had no idea what WAR is really about, as it is easy to impose "rules" on others when you are not the one doing the fighting. I would suppose under the Geneva Convention, such liberal blathering would be considered "torture" of conservatives.I am always amused when neocons like you are amused at liberals when we remind you that we are in violation of agreements that we as a country have signed. I am further amused when you express outrage when the hajis do something that causes great loss of life against us. After all there are no rules right?

To me it's simple, we (USA) signed it, as signaturies (sp) and supposed good guys we should honor it. If we feel as a country these rules we agreed to are no longer useful or valid than before we break them we should announce our departure from them.

Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effective, and two I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.

I'm liberal leaning but certainly not a "bleeding heart" as I have been called over and over again by folks here. Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthless, it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial, but as far as useful info not so much. In any event the point is moot, we signed the agreement and we are in violation for breaking it simple as that.

As long as we are member nations then no we shouldn't use it, if we choose to remove ourselves from these agreements that would be a different story. Then I would have to decide if this is still the country that shares my values or not but at least as a nation we would regain our integrity.

As always though I respect your right to believe as you do, while engaging in spirited debate, not suggesting that you are un american for advocating an anarchist position that clearly is in violation of our laws.

Jackson

07-11-09, 14:57

If Mrs Obama wants a date night, she should go back and see her husbands hometown in Kenya, where he was born.Perhaps they can have a candlelight dinner in her brother in law's shanty?

Jackson

07-11-09, 21:21

We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."Hi,

I offered my definition of torture.

This is another definition.

Undoubtedly there are hundreds of other definitions, but that's my point. It's all in the specific individual's definition of torture.

A couple of other observations:

1. I don't believe that Al Queda or the Taliban are signatories to the Geneva convention, so I would question their legitimacy to claim any rights thereunder.

2. It seems to me that every police interrogation of a criminal suspect would qualify as torture under the Geneva Convention, given that these interrogations many time include threats of imprisonment which one could interpret as fitting this definition:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed..."What say you?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

07-12-09, 02:27

Let's get a couple things straight:

1. If you want to live in freedom, you must keep the anti-freedom forces (whatever they may be) away from the people.

2. To accomplish (1) above, there must be a few dedicated folks at the pointy end of the spear who do that which is necessary to perpetuate the free way of life.

3. Those select few who are described in (2) above, and their specific actions will be second-guessed and vilified by some of the very people on whose behalf they act.

4. Those who chose to vilify and attack those who act legitimately to keep us safe, live in a cocoon protecting an altered state of being, having convinced themselves of "truisms" that cannot exist in the real world such as 1) Elvis was clean and sober at the time of his death, 2) the moon is made of cheese, and 3) we can live happily ever after without the need for an occasional question and answer session (facilitated with a cattle prod)

With all due respect, your ramblings need some investigation. This is not meant as a personal attack, think of it as an intervention whereby you might actually be saved. There is absolutely nothing in my comments that is "right wing" or "conservative." Just simple facts.

I am always amused when neocons like you are amused at liberals when we remind you that we are in violation of agreements that we as a country have signed. To me it's simple, we (USA) signed it, as signaturies (sp) and supposed good guys we should honor it. If we feel as a country these rules we agreed to are no longer useful or valid than before we break them we should announce our departure from them.Your amusement aside, please state factual references to specific US violations of the GC. You want to believe how terrible we are. Unfortunately, the truth is, we just aren't that bad (sorry to disappoint you)

Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effectiveThat is a feel-good, bullshit line created to give people a back-up reason for being against torture. The people who trot out this line have never come remotely close to the actual process nor have they ever looked first hand and the fruits of 'enhanced' interrogations. It works, trust me. I support deriving any and all information from potential non-US-citizen terror suspects. I also support the judicious remediation of terror problems with extreme prejudice.

I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.

Very logical, we are above lawlessness and we do adhere to our international and internal commitments on behavior. However, you need to understand that we are the boy scouts in this world of interrogations. If you we to get caught and interrogated, trust me, you want to be in US hands.

Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthlessAgain, you are making a statement on the basis of what you hope / wish is the truth. You are mistaken.

it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial

If it were not for the fact that no one (other than whacked-out lefties) would take you seriously on this subject, this non sequitur would be one of the most egregious statements I have ever read on AP. Your statement is careless and erroneous. Please feel free to make specific quotations of "Bushies" on the record statements visa vi their feelings about punishing rag heads under extrajudicial circumstances and processes.

As always though I respect your right to believe as you doI share your sentiment and I believe that your contributions to this board on other subjects, such as Argie pussy, are a much better use of your time.

El Queso

07-12-09, 02:47

Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effective, and two I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.

. Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthless, it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial, but as far as useful info not so much. In any event the point is moot, we signed the agreement and we are in violation for breaking it simple as that.Hey man, I'm really not far right and certainly waver at the use of torture just because I don't trust government - any government.

But I have to agree with others here that those who are saying torture is not effective may not have all of the facts, or are ignoring something. I say this as an opinion, because I don't have all the facts either.

The thing is, just using common sense, you can get a pretty good idea of the truth of statements because you have a very large pool of information sources to verify it. I write business applications, so I know something about information sampling. If you had one or two or maybe even ten prisoners and you tortured them, you might get two different possible threats out of them - one or two guys knew something and of the others one or two maybe knew a little something about it, but they weren't tied to that so the information didn't exactly match up. Not enough sampling to make a decision.

However, take hundreds of prisoners who are researched and matched throughout world criminal databases to see the relationships and probabilities between them, you can pinpoint your smapling much sharper and produce verifiable results that will be reasonably accurate. You'll have some errors too. But the results are going to be successful. The numbers say so.

What would really matter, if you got past the means of extracting the information, is what you do with it.

Now, I'm still not condoning real physical, damaging torture. But I also don't think that's necessary. Tell me that locking someone away in a US prison doesn't cause a person some mental anguish and by that definition too strictly we torture our own inmates.

But waterboarding, seeing each other naked or in front of women, wearing underwear on their head or whatever, if not taken overboard, could be a reasonable means for retrieving information that could save a lot of lives. The slippery slope is where I have the most trouble.

TejanoLibre

07-13-09, 01:59

We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Taking nothing from Bud Day of course, but this is the legal definition we (USA USA USA) accepted when we signed this agreement. However as a tolerant liberal I of course advocate you having the right to believe as you do.Omar Sheriff asking Dustin Hoffmann ¨if it's safe ¨in a great movie called The Marathon Man!

Looks painful to me.

A little water torture never hurt anybody!

Those little sand rats distinguished citizens of Middle Eastern countries are just allergic to water!

Strap me in and I won't sing!

Bull-shit!

Show me the gurney and I'm all about names and adresses baby!

I have already done it in the states. They did not give a shit about my info! Damnit!

If my info will not cause the death and demise of the U. S. A. I mean a (of a great country then who cares?)

My balls are going to stay firmly attached. Daddy First and Fuck the rest!

TL.

P. S - I do have a Purple Heart for some reason!

BadMan

07-13-09, 04:32

Are you refering to Arabs?

If so, I find your comments offensive. I am sure there are many Arab and Arab Americans on this website.

Try to keep your racism off this public forum.

Regards,

BM.
Those little sand rats are just allergic to water!Jackson, maybe it would be wise to edit this.

Wild Walleye

07-13-09, 15:37

Jackson, maybe it would be wise to edit this.Jax, if you would be so kind as to place quotation marks around "rag heads" in my last post. I was not making a slur, I was repeating the slur in my post to make a point (which is not well made without the quotation marks)

I have many friends from places such as Lebanon, Egypt and the UAE and work with a number of groups in MENA (Middle East North Africa) and do not view them any differently that my friends from non-MENA countries.

Slurs, like torture, can be effective in shaping and directing public perception of certain groups (has been done throughout history) however, in an intellectual discussion, the use of slurs usually diminishes the speaker and his / her message.

TL- do you have purple heart? Let me buy you a drink next time I am in town.

Jackson

07-13-09, 17:42

Greetings everyone,

I'm sure that everyone can appreciate that the very nature of the Forum requires that the readers keep their "sensitivity radars" turned down.

Nevertheless, I have edited the original text, as follows:

Those little sand rats distinguished citizens of Middle Eastern countries are just allergic to water!Thanks,

Jackson

El Alamo

07-13-09, 22:00

It has been a long time since we have had a deranged liberal in the White House. Clinton was anything but a deranged liberal. Carter was an idiot but not a deranged liberal. LBJ. Maybe. Kennedy would be considered a Republican today. Truman. No way.

At least we don't have to listen to the dribble about Reagon's tax cuts putting us in the poor house. Obama is putting us in the poor house with tax increases.

The other day Obama said that the Republicans have only one answer to our economic problems I. E. Cutting taxes. Fortuneately for us Obama has another solution for our economic problems I. E. Increasing taxes.

Wild Walleye

07-14-09, 22:49

He and his lackeys do all possible to destroy the USA auto and supplier industry, destoying, eliminating, an uncountable thousands of jobs. Meanwhile, China has surpassed the USA in auto production and sales (for 2009, China sales were 6.1 million vs 4.8 million in the USA) China launched a stimulus package with sales tax cuts, trade-in subsidies, and other incentives. While the Obomination destroyed, downsized, and made a giveaway to Fiat. What an idiot! CHANGE!This guy is not stupid. He is seeking to destroy what makes this country great. He has contempt for every last one of us, those that despise him and those that idolize him.

He just threw out the first pitch in the MLB All Star game and the State-Run Media just described him as a Sox (White Sox, not the real Sox) fan through-and-through. I guess because he had a white sox jacket on and lived in Chicago at one point. Every schmuck in the media has their nose up his ass.

The guy could take a shit on a service tray on an AA flight (like the guy from Chase) and they would applaud him for being green and trying to recycle the chateaubriand served on mesclun greens.

That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.

Rock Harders

07-15-09, 23:27

Mongers-

I think it is quite clear that Sidney has caught syphilis from one of his skanky Dominican concubines and that the disease has advanced to the point where it is causing him to become confused and lose his mind. This is the only logical explantation how Sidney, himself a former GM man, could possibly blame Obama for destroying the US auto industry (meaning GM and Chrysler) GM and Chrysler are bankrupt today because of gross mismanagement and poor business strategy. Period. Obama's (and Bush's) mistake was to give them any money at all to stay afloat when it was painfully obvious the entire time that neither of these companies could possibly avoid bankruptcy. Bailing out the auto industry is both futile and unnecessary. Ford was able to stay afloat without assistance and there are plenty of Japanese and European automobiles available in the United States at reasonable prices. Bailing out financial institutions (TARP) was absolutely necessary as without the availability of credit and loans a modern market economy cannot function. However, as I have previously stated, the economic stimulus package is complete bullshit that will destroy the currency and savings of the US populace.

People who claim that Obama is out to destroy the United States and enslave its citizens are foolish and not to be taken seriously.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Esten

07-16-09, 00:38

That grampa letter is one pathetic piece of garbage.

El Queso

07-16-09, 00:41

People who claim that Obama is out to destroy the United States and enslave its citizens are foolish and not to be taken seriously.RH, I agree.

I absolutely despise the way that Obama is approaching getting us out of trouble.

But it's a difference of two basic memes (or paradigms) competing as genes compete evolutionally (evolutionarily? "The other side" (whichever side one happens to be on) should not be seen as someone who is truly trying to destroy the country, as if they were an enemy. Both sides truly believe what they are spouting. I think both sides want what they see as best for the country and it isn't ruin or enslavement.

One may think that another's view is going to lead to destruction and enslavement. In fact, it may, but I heavily doubt that there are many in our political world who are "Dr. Evil" and want to take over the country, that would provide that result on purpose. Not that there aren't any, but I don't see Obama or Bush as being a Dr Evil. Human, wrong-sighted, etc. But I think both honestly want (ed) to do what's right as they see it.

Wild Walleye

07-16-09, 14:25

He didn't go to Evil Medical School, he went to Evil Law School.

But I think both honestly want (ed) to do what's right as they see it.I know you may think that I am extreme, however, I believe that he believes that he is doing right by 'restoring' what he believes should be the proper balance of American society by breaking down the system that has allowed the 'Haves' steal the national bounty from the 'Have-nots.' This 'restoration' necessitates the destruction that he is wreaking upon the nation. To make all the people equal, he must make them all wards of the state which will ensure the perpetuation of the Statists position in the government.

The truth, of what his tax and spend policies is and will do, is that they will bankrupt the nation, lower our standard of life and reduce our stature in the world.

Please, anyone, tell me how anyone could believe that 1) these deficits are no big deal, 2) how the government will do a better job running health care than private industry, 3) the existing health care coverage of 280 million people (private and government) should be thrown out the window for approximately 10 million people that can't get coverage, 10 million that chose not to buy coverage and 20 million illegal immigrants, or 4) that historic deficit spending on political pet projects will solve our economic woes.

Like I said, Chairman MaObama is not stupid. He knows the likely impact of his policies and he desires those outcomes. What do you call that?

Wild Walleye

07-16-09, 14:55

Chairman MaObama has solved everything!

All I have to do is move to San Fran and find a way to live on $4-6K spreading propaganda.

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/gov/1267416703.html

This is a great use of our tax payer dollars. Give brain-dead losers $11-16/ hour to be the 'New' grass roots (now should be called greenroots) What a great concept, when people don't believe in what you are doing, pay them to do propagandize the public. What a great way to abuse the office (congress has done this for a long time) to destroy something that throughout American history has done by people moved to action by their beliefs.

Miami Bob

07-17-09, 01:21

Investment bankers and traders are partially responsible for a missing trillion dollars and the desperate situation that we all share. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sid--how many tens of millions of dollars did you make during the time when the government was controlled by your boys and there was no regulation. Every day I read the same old shit. At least say something original--Wally and Sid are repeating themselves.

Yes Sid you have the right to repeat yourself 100,000 times on the website and I also have the right to say you are boring. Now call me a communist. Per your standards Nixon was a communist--medicare was Nixon's baby. Sid if you really want to sincerely protest: send back your social security checks and don't use medicare--Show us that you really are against socialism. Don't fool around complaining about over paying a taxi driver by 40cents us--Be a man and send back those socialist social security checks. OR MAYBE BE GENEROUS AND HELP RUGGERO AT BARTS WHO IS DOWN TO STEALING A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS BASED ON THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.

Walley, your posts are more creative and aren't boring, but the theme is becoming repetitious. Please keep the outrageous hyperbole coming--it is at least entertaining! By way of a second thought, I souldn't be grouping you with sid at all, sorry.

Anyone who disaggrees with me is a communist or socialist; therefore Sid as a communist, you can keep your social security check or use it too keep 3 dominicanas in the Dominican Republic as long as as they blow you a minimum of twice per year--we don't believe is welfare--they got to work for 1/3 of the communist inspired social security check.

Walley has his own trickle-down economics plan--he redistributes wealth based upon how much of his leche trickles down their throats---A large percentage of the argentine hooker community will suffer if the bush tax cuts end and the wally trickle-down plan ends or is cut back.

I can't try to be rational like rock dealing with boring sid and his rants about overpaying 40 cents for a taxi ride. I do appreciate wally's brand of insanity even if my personal insanity slightly differs because wally get's extra points because he is funny and entertaining and only rants about problems involving billlions of dollars.

Not--sid you are such a bright and creative man--please stop being so boring. On this part of this website.

Ps I'm in BA in a few weeks and want to visit both sid and wally who are great guys when we don't talk about politics---your hopefully non-political while in ba friend.

MB

BadMan

07-17-09, 08:31

No need to get riled up fellas.

No one takes whats written on this board seriously. At least as far as anything non sex or Argentina lifestyle related.

That's just a simple fact. This thread is nothing but a rant thread for the right wingers. Let them have it. It's all they got left.

I Lol every time I hear Sid say Obama wants to destroy the US. He's a smart enough guy that he doesn't really believe that. But being sensational sells and he knows it. Only problem is, no one on this board is buying it, well except a few tards, but who really cares what they think?

Lets all take a deep breath.

Regards,

BM.

Miami Bob

07-17-09, 11:34

Sid--I enjoy your company and in person conversation--clean-up your act. It is a high quality act and you are better than this. MB.

Ps if sid is auditioning for a job on conservative talk radio is the usa because of recent trading losses, I take back everything--Everyone needs to make a living. I see Rush as an entertainer. Sid just follws walley's example and be more entertaining.

Punter 127

07-17-09, 12:51

The last few post are typical attack the messenger tactics of the left. If you can’t defend your guys’ actions, attack the messenger.

If you don’t like what’s posted on this thread I don’t think you’re required to read it.

And if you don’t like what Sid post you have the option of putting him on your ignore list.

I Lol every time I hear Sid say Obama wants to destroy the US. He's a smart enough guy that he doesn't really believe that. But being sensational sells and he knows it. Only problem is, no one on this board is buying it, well except a few tards, but who really cares what they think?I also don’t think we need personal insults and name calling. (of members)

If you want to debate then debate, but leave the moderating to Jackson.

Wild Walleye

07-17-09, 15:03

Bob:

I wouldn't send my kid to an MBA program that doesn't include hardcore finance classes as part of its core curriculum.

I know you directed the radio host comment to Sid because you know I yearn for higher office, like governor of SC.

One man's monotony is another man's consistency.

I hope to see you in a few weeks.

Stan Da Man

07-17-09, 17:48

As an example, when I resigned from my GM division, 12,000 were employed. At the nearby C plant, 6,000 were employed. As of early 2009, 2/3 of the employees were eliminated. And under O, they will decline much more! This senario is being repeated all over America. Buy that!----------------- Sensational Tard Sid-----------------I don't really want to stir the pot on this, but: When has it been the government's "responsibility" to prop up failing businesses?

Now, I realize that we have started to do this with the too-big-to-fail bailouts initiated by Bush and continued under Obama. I also think there's a good argument that some of this may have been necessary.

But, it should be the rare exception and not the rule. The preferred position should be no government intervention unless absolutely necessary, and even then it should be criticized and frowned upon.

We've proven for 30 years that we suck at making cars. I wish it weren't true, but anyone who has owned a Toyota or Honda vs. A Ford or Chevy can tell you this -- at least if they don't have a hidden agenda. So, let the Japanese and Chinese make cars. We're good at a lot of other things that they're not good at. Our child molesting singers make better music than their artists -- at least most folks seem to think so.

There will be pain in this whole business failure process. Let's get on with it. If the alternative is to have government propping up everything -- or propping up those with the most political influence -- then I say let them fail.

Stan Da Man

07-17-09, 21:19

The Privado needs business or they will go out of business and all suffer. The AR government prefers all be working, not on welfare. They pay the Privado 50 pesos, you pay 100 pesos. All are employed, and you are happy! In the long run, the government is better off. OR the government could disparage, etc all Privados and put them out of business. Then you would need to visit other countries.Thanks, Sid, but I personally don't believe in such a system. The suggestion is that, if the government doesn't step in (or if it "disparages") then everyone becomes unemployed permanently.

Instead, I believe that people will eventually find a way to be gainfully employed as long as the government doesn't stand in their way -- e. G. By giving them handouts that create an incentive to stay unemployed. But, I'll go with your metaphor. This, in my opinion, is the true example of the privados: The government doesn't provide a sufficient handout to let everyone lay around on their duffs doing nothing. So, the pretty girls who can, do. And, since the government hasn't made their occupation illegal, they are able to earn a decent living.

Indeed, I think if you talked to the privado owners and to some of the girls, you'd find that the situation is just the opposite than in your example: Every once in a while a government inspector, licensing official, police officer or fire marshall sticks their hand out and expects the privado owners (and sometimes the girls) to put a little something in it. By so doing, they are allowed to stay in business. The subsidies aren't flowing the other way and they never have. I know you weren't suggesting that the government was subsidizing the privados, but it was your example. And, of course, there is then the small matter of taxes.

By the way, what is the "disparage"ment you refer to? If it's the government disparaging American car companies, I submit this is just a distraction. Our car companies' problems started long, long ago. No recent disparagement did them in. The government didn't harm them by questioning their viability certainly. That issue has been around for quite a long time. Likewise, it's not just American car companies whose sales are suffering. Talk to Honda, Toyota, BMW and Mercedes. They may be better able to weather this crisis, but their sales have likewise fallen off a cliff.

If disparagement refers to something else, then I'm just too thick to understand. I do appreciate your perspective, Sid. I just part company with you on this one issue.

Wild Walleye

07-17-09, 23:23

Should be strictly limited to only those things that the government can (need some empirical proof here) do better than private industry. These activities would include standing and army and a limited few other things.

Taxes levied in the USA for the most part are extraconstitutional. The constitution limits what the legislature can do visa vi levying taxing on the populace. My question is, when is someone going to test the constitutionality of these obscene seizures of private property in the court system and bring the legislature back into check?

On the subject of government subsidies of privados, I'm all for it! Fuck yeah, let's nationalize prostitution! It is everyone's right to get fine ass at a reasonable price.

Whiskas

07-18-09, 02:54

On the subject of government subsidies of privados, I'm all for it! Fuck yeah, let's nationalize prostitution! It is everyone's right to get fine ass at a reasonable price.I am against nationalization of prostitution, now, with privados in private hands you get fine ass, of young age at affordable prices. Plain and simple: supply and demand.

If they are nationalized, then you will have to fill a form to get your service, get 4 copies, deliver it to the madam 72 hours prior to your service, naturally you will have to bribe her in order to get someone who is not older than 55 and with a waist smaller than 120 cm. Actually the new measurements of the "social workers" will be 90-120-120 courtesy of the agreement of the legislators and the leaders of the "sindicato nacional de prostitutas, putas, jineteras, peteras, similares why conexos" (national union of hoes, putes, peteras and workers of similar and related jobs) which allows them to charge you $500 usd for 30 minutes and getting 2 days rest after providing you with her company.

BTW you will have to pay their vacation through the new "Impuesto especial sobre colas suntuarias" (Special luxury ass tax) which amounts to another $250 usd which will go directly to Mrs K pocket -and I don't mean Kellog's special K-, naturally condoms are not just mandatory, they will be a matter of life and death, since social services won't test the hoes for STD's so the clap, AIDS, et al are going to be rampant.

So, what will it be, private or nationalized sir?

Stan Da Man

07-18-09, 03:02

I am against nationalization of prostitution, now, with privados in private hands you get fine ass, of young age at affordable prices. Plain and simple: supply and demand.

If they are nationalized, then you will have to fill a form to get your service, get 4 copies, deliver it to the madam 72 hours prior to your service, naturally you will have to bribe her in order to get someone who is not older than 55 and with a waist smaller than 120 cm. For a vivid example of what happens when the government gets involved in supporting prostitution, just go to Nevada. For anyone that's been to one of these places, nothing more needs to be said.

Miami Bob

07-18-09, 13:44

You are both gentlemen who permitted me to rant and came up with more entertaining material. Reading my rant post again: Sid--I'm sorry--I was inappropriate and too hard for public conmsumption--I sould have sent you an email. Please forgive me. You know me well enough that it is not generally my style.

I'm just really frustrated with the whole of the usa political situation now. O is not the top of my list, but he is on the list. I would still vote for him again.

I also made money during the no-regulation governmet of and fore the corporatations period that we just left behind. That type of easy capital will never be available again--personally it will cost me money; but as a citizen of a great country --our politics and regulatory system were too out of wack. Generally markets and politics over-Correct when they swing back from one extreme to another. Jackson would call it a dialectic--because of political theory backround and that does not make anyone a socialist nor communitist---it will verify that it is basic trading folk law--the swingS back and forth over do it---too much pain and many trading opportunity with mis-priced items in the market over reactions. I made money when cooper and oil were mispriced. My goldman sacks holdings surprised the living day lights out of me--now those guys are really the cream of the crop traders.

BOYS--THANKS FOR PERMITTING MY RANT WITHOUT FLAMING ME BACK WHEN I DESERVED IT --ESPECIALLY FROM SID--SID I'm SORRY.

Wild Walleye

07-19-09, 02:55

Next election day, I'll pick you up.

Stan and Whiskas, great points on nationalizing prostitution. I was really just supporting the fantasy of free awesome pussy as an analogy to the awesome free medical care that we are promised under Obamacare. The reality in both cases is very, very ugly (like Checkers Pub.)

Miami Bob

07-19-09, 05:00

Florida might be atypical--the instrusty actually writes the legislation here. Rate setting is different than in 48 other states. I applied to 6 health insurance companies and all six will not write me health insurance of any type. I do not have any serious illnesses, but a number of common problems for my age.

I could no longer afford the group insurance that I had for my 6 employees and now I know that I cannot buy individual coverage. It is impossible.

I still have a couple of things that I can try by having emloyees under a couple of different corporate employers and becoming a group of one or three is absolutely necessary. There is a real serious problem here in Florida. Many other states might be more consumer friendly and not have the same problems.

Group health insurance is exempt from contract law suites under state law.

Under an individual policy, if the carrier doesn't pay a bill, you can go down to the state version of the people's court and sue them and when maybe even without an atty. Group insurance is control by the US Dept of labor and it's administrative code--basically the group carrier can do anything that it wants as long as it does not violate it's own rules or committ an intentional tort like fraud. The USA Supreme Court criticized this system as Congress permitting the wolf to guard the hen house.

During the Bush years wealth became much more concentrated in the top 1% and / or 5% of the population--a number of which are members of this site [and might include me].

Rolling back the percentages to the State of the Union at the end of the clinton administration is not communism, socialism; but a reversal of a social policy that permitted a reorganization of the distribution of wealth. I am not going to take the time to look up the numbers.

If O could balance the books by me paying 1% more taxes, I would gladly do it. I would love to buy the same insurance that Congress gets. My last policy cost about us$900 permonth and did not really provide any non-catastrophic coverage. I purchased my drugs overseas or with a walgreens discount club card--cheaper than my insurance coverage.

This is my real story. If my income was us$100,000 and I had kids, then I would be in real trouble. free hookers, how about basic health care?

I appreciate the humor which my brothers approach the health issue and recognise that there will be some sort of health rationing in the future based upon wealth, but this is not a happy situation.

El Perro

07-19-09, 10:06

Per Miami Bob's report, the healthcare situation is one of the main reasons I continue to live in Argentina. Being self employed and living in Florida is an absolute nightmare regarding cost (not to mention the haphazard HMO sanctioned care provided for your mega bucks) Despite the premiums of Swiss Medical coverage escalating over the past few years, the cost is nearly a drop in the bucket compared to what would be similar coverage in Florida. In contrast to what my situation would be like in Florida, in BsAs I pay out of pocket to see cream of the crop physicians, who do not accept Swiss Medical (usually between 200 and 300p an office visit) and then let Swiss Medical cover any testing ordered at 100%. I could do it all through Swiss Medical covered Docs for close to nothing, but prefer to see very competent, well established physicians who have opted out of insurance plans.

Tessan

07-19-09, 12:29

The same thing is true in New York. The only way I could get insurance, was to form a business with 2 or more employees. Otherwise I could not get any, or I had to pay between 1500-2000 dollars a month. With the business I pay about 700.

Something needs to be done about health care in the US. I have a friend who spent 9 days in the hospital without insurance in NY, and his bill was over 30 thousand dollars. All they did was give him intravenous antibiotics, since he had a bad infection in his foot. 4 years ago I met a guy in Mexico, who told me he got sick in Mexico with pneumonia and had to spend 2 weeks in the hospital there. His bill was 2000 dollars. Why the difference in price? The treatment was the same, antibiotics. Why the difference in price. Something really wrong with our heath care system. If your are poor, the government gives it for free, if you are over 65 you can get Medicare, otherwise unless your employer give you healthcare, you are screwed.

If you have a heart attack in the US, and you do not have insurance, and they do a bypass, expect a bill between 200,000 and 250,000 dollars. Why do things cost so much more in the US than in other counties? Does it really cost us more to do they same thing? Something is not right.

Punter 127

07-19-09, 13:44

Did you guys shop around?

I just did a quick search for individual health insurance for Florida and New York.

I used my mothers’ zip code in Orlando with my D. O. B. For Florida, and for NY I used my D. O. B. And a zip code of 11211. Oh I’m 57 years old.

I got quotes starting as low $150 depending on the company and type of coverage.

One of the links doesn’t offer NY coverage but the other one offers both.

http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/individual-health-insurance.ds

http://www.assuranthealth.com/corp/ah/default.htm

If you have pre existing condition or bad habits I’m sure the quotes would be higher.

It would be very interesting to see what kind of quotes you guys get.

Tessan

07-19-09, 14:30

I don't know what those plan cover, I looked at it quickly the cheap plan said no office visits. I guess it cover some hospital emergency or something. The other plans 350 and up looked like HMO, still a good price, some said had to be sole proprietor.

This is a link to the State of New York web site with prices for different health plans, for New York City. These are the prices the insurance companies file with the State of New York. These prices are for individuals, not businesses

http://www.ins.state.ny.us/hmorates/html/hmonewyo.htm

There was nothing below 754 a month and that for an HMO, where they control who you can see. I have a PPO, which let me see doctor outside a clinic. The price for a PPO, which I have GHI, is $2,654.91, on the State web site. I pay a little over 700 because I am a business.

When I called different insurance companies, they all quoted me the prices on the NY State site. The prices on that ehealthinsurance are better. Are this prices on ehealthinsurance real? Has anyone tried them? Or are they trying to suck you in, then give you very little coverage, or tell you later you have to pay more?

Punter 127

07-19-09, 14:55

I’m sure the cheap plan is junk, but the others look like they may be some good companies, but they would need to be investigated more.

I’m retiring the end of this month and will have to start paying the full cost of my insurance next month. My cost to stay on the same group plan I’m on now will be between $315 and $435 depending on the option I take.

Considering the difference in the cost of living between New York and Indiana $700 may not be that bad of a price.

But whatever happens I hope we can agree we don’t want Mexican class health care.

Tessan

07-19-09, 15:04

What I don't understand is why it cost 30,000 dollar to spend 9 days in a hospital in NY? It does not cost the hospital that much to keep you in a bed, and give you antibiotics. The prices are out of control.

Punter 127

07-19-09, 15:28

I agree with you completely, but I don’t see how the current proposed legislation will correct the problem.

Jackson

07-19-09, 18:59

Why do things cost so much more in the US than in other counties?Medical malpractice lawsuits and medical malpractice insurance premiums, in part.

It's interesting how The Messiah's health reform doesn't even address tort reform. Could that be because the vast majority of litigation lawyers are Democrats?

Thanks,

Jackson

El Queso

07-19-09, 19:15

What gets me about the whole health insurance thing is that health insurance is not to be used for health disaster, but rather for every little thing. People search for the lowest deductible possible, lowest co-pays, lowest contribution for medicines. It has become a "known thing" that we can't possibly have good medical care wihtout paying thousands of dollars a year in CASE IT'S NEEDED. To go to the doctor for a cold, for a rash, what have you - they sell insurance for every little thing and actually make you feel good about it because wow! Your co-pay is only ten dollars! Your prescriptions are free! Better use the a lot to make it worth the hefty price tag you're paying in case something BAD actually happens to you.

Why can't people pay their own everyday expenses out of their own pocket? Why can't people have a disaster policy instead of a policy that pays for their trips to the doctor for a checkup, instead of thinking that the latest headache is a brain tumor and going to have a bunch of tests that yes, the insurance companies pays for - but who the hell is paying for it? Everyone who pays these outrageous premiums! I mean, really, how many times have you really had something so bad that, although it might have left you strapped, you couldn't have put all that money in an investment instead of in the insurance companies' pockets?

When I lived in Houston I rarely had insurance. I did when I worked for a big company, but the truth is, I would have MUCH rather had the $800 a month they were paying to cover my family. That's almost $10K a year!

I was later (and still am) self-employed. I have three children. When we got sick, we went to a small clinic down the road and paid something like $60 to go see the doctor. Sometimes we paid as much as $100 for one or more prescriptions. It was a nice place, modern, clean, professional. The trips to the doctor for a family of 5 cost me far less than the $800 or so a month that I would have had to pay for "full" insurance coverage.

We kept ourselves in decent health and didn't have a whole lot of problems.

Sure, there are reasons to have insurance. I finally bought a disaster policy for my kids, just in case. I am paying about $200 a month for the three of them. But the individual deductible is $5,000, with total out-of-pocket yearly expenses for three people at $10,000. The lifetime limit is $1,000,000. This is in case something BIG happens.

For the small things, we have become dependent on the health INSURANCE system. It is rife with the desire to make money (as most enterprises should be) Doctors love to order unneccesary tests, hospitals love to overcharge for everything, because the two together (the medical providers and the insurance providers) have managed to become very close - there's a lot of money to be sucked out of the suckers who have become hypocondriacs and need to maintain this level with what the insurance carriers offer.

My grandmother, about a year before she died (she lived to be 92 and smoked for almost 50 years before quitting) told me a story about her life in the 50's, when health insurance started being a big thing. A doctor's visit cost her about $5. Shortly after she got health insurance through the bank she worked for, the doctor told her she didn't have to pay any more, and don't worry, because he was going to be able to charge the insurance company twice what she used to pay.

Things change. The founding fathers of the US knew that and hoped that the Constitution they put together would hold things together, along with education and understanding.

But what happened is that people voted themselves other people's money. It starts with things like insurance - people in general are ignorant and salesmen have been looking for ways to sell them things they don't need, until all of the sudden there is a very large group of people, all the way up to the president of the US (plenty of them, not just Obama) who is either convinced that this paradigm "is right" or are in the pockets of the very people trying to sell things.

Health coverage for everyone? Let's get doctors and insurance companies and the court system under control instead of figuring out a way to get the government to prop up a system that makes way too much money for those who don't even touch patients.

Tequila Tim

07-19-09, 19:48

Punter 127

07-19-09, 21:33

Medical malpractice lawsuits and medical malpractice insurance premiums, in part.

It's interesting how The Messiah's health reform doesn't even address tort reform. Could that be because the vast majority of litigation lawyers are Democrats?

Thanks,

JacksonHi Jackson,

I agree the need for tort reform is part of the problem and it’s a good place to start. However I’m not convinced it’s the whole problem.

For example I currently have prescription drug coverage with staggered co-pays, depending on the drug. I have found that I can buy these drugs in Argentina or the Philippines for about the same over the counter price as my co-payment here, depending on the exchange rate on any given day.

Now in Argentina they produce drugs so you could possible explain it away, but in the Philippines the drugs are imported and I’m buying the exact same brands and the over the counter cost is roughly the same as my co-payment. How is that possible?

I think we should consider reducing the prescription requirement for many drugs, why should I have to see a Doctor and get a prescription to buy antibiotics, vitamin V, and a lot of other drugs? I’ve heard all the arguments for this, but I see it as just another unnecessary costly regulation. Look at what you can walk in and buy in BA.

My plan for retirement is to carry the cheapest coverage as I can, which is a high deductible major medical plan, and I may dump that at some point considering I will be out of the USA most of the time. My worst nightmare would be to have a major problem while in the USA.

I tend to agree with El Queso, we do abuse the health system, and insurance companies abuse us, but as for the currently proposed legislation,
Well I vote “Present” !

BA Luvr

07-19-09, 23:32

Everyone is ignoring the BIG benefit to a health insurance plan, besides the catastrophic coverage. The plans get a big discount from the doctors and hospitals. Even if you pay the entire bill yourself, the discount often saves thousands of dollars. Hospitals justify charging uninsured patients a huge markup as a means to pay for those on a plan or just plain destitute. This to me is patently unfair and a justification for some kind of national health insurance. I don't understand why this topic gets no coverage in the press.

Miami Bob

07-20-09, 00:17

1. The advertised rates are not binding and the carrier does not have to offer you any insurance at all--this is for individual policies and a simular set of rules that are more liberal apply to groups of less than 50. The check your medicaL HISTORY BASED UPON THE MEDICAL INDEX BUREAU--another sesspool of misinformation and coruption which is not regulated.

2. In Florida, there are no longer run of the mill medical malpratice claims--they have been legislated out of existance for some time. The only malpractice claims left are catastrophic and clear -cut negligence that runs outside of known risks and the attorney is personally libel for the costs and atty fees otherwise. At one point I did malpratice defence as a substantial part of making my living. Malpratice is dead in florida with very limited exceptions.

-the rate setting in Florida for malpracice insuranace has very little to do with the claims paid, the way it is in most states. Florida is controlled by large corpations.

There are almost no consumer rights groups that have any say and organized labor has been lesgistlated out of existance.

3. Healthcare is broken here because it is 100% controlled by huge unregulated oligopolies---simular to the unregulated boys who brought you the mortgage industry w / o regulation. The only other group who has any real say is the AMA--medical doctor's lobbying group--which is highly political--one specialty gets rich and other has it's income cut in half.

Eg I needed an epidural block last year. It is a procedure that takes less than 5 minutes, but must be done under a floriscope. I wait for my block --ten men where lined up in the doctors's office. He did 10 at maybe an average of 5 minutes each. My insurance paid him US$875 for this 5 minute procedure.

-the primary care doctor sent me for some physical therapy--6 sessions and my problem was 80% cured. The primarly care doc and my neurologist both told me not be get another block--the blocks offer not permanent benefit and they are designed to stop inflamation enough to start other types of treatment.

On my return visit to the doc who gave me the block, the doc told me that I needed a series of nine or I could end up paralyzed. I got up and walked out the door and never went back. This doc was motivated by greed, not good medical practice. I called my cousin who is the same specialty as the doc giving the block--my cousin said blocks are a cash cow and I did not need another block and in fact recomended an acupuncturist.

My cousin is a medical school professor and not a businessman. Since seeing the acupuncturist have have not need any medication nor additional medical care. A broken sick system wherein each player with power is grabbing for $$$ like greedy pigs. The invisible had of the market needs help of some sort.

El Queso

07-20-09, 01:00

Damman

07-20-09, 11:56

Wild Walleye

07-20-09, 14:11

It is pretty simple, really.

You get what you pay for and you are also paying for someone else.

To understand the US healthcare system and its pluses and minuses you need to throw out your preconceived notions about it and the misinformation that you have been fed by the media and the left for the last 50 years. You need to understand a few simple facts about the current state of the industry and some basic business principles (this is an apolitical overview)

First, the facts:

1. The quality of health care (the care itself, not the system) available in the USA is the best in the world,

2. Much (not all) medical and pharma innovation occurs in the US and by US companies,

3. It is available to all (yes all) and if you can't pay for it, it's "free" (just walk into any emergency room and see for yourself)

4. Government intervention and interference in: a) the delivery of services, b) the third-party payer system / insurance industry, and c) the macro-level machinations of the marketplace, drives up the cost of services and products,

5. Our ever increasingly litigious society, characterized by bums like John Edwards making tens of millions by suing doctors and winning based on junk science, puts an enormous burden (read 'cost') on care providers (malpractice insurance, legal fees, etc) pharma and device companies (product liability, legal fees, etc)

6. Only about 35% of the 'customers' are paying full freight, therefore they must help to underwrite the care of th3 65% who do not.

7. The cost of the drugs is higher in the US than many places around the world.

Now business 101:

In order to have a sustainable business in a free market (and I am still using that term loosely for some US markets) one needs to collect more money than one expends, during the course of business. That means that in the case of a provider of services, it needs to be able to sell those services for an amount that exceeds all of the direct and indirect costs, related to the delivery of the specific service.

Direct costs are pretty straight forward they include the drugs, artificial hips, titanium pins, prosthetic peckers and saline D-cups as well as the time of the staff when they are actually working on the patient case.

The indirect costs are where it gets confusing. The indirect costs are innumerable, but include things like: a) overhead (admin staff, rent, utilities, maintenance, garbage collection, computer networks, software licenses, etc) be) medical equipment (monitors, surgical tools, IV pumps, lights, incubators, MRI machines, etc) c) regulatory compliance (all costs for compliance with things like JCAHO, OSHA and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") which often include additional staff just to administer compliance) d) many different types of insurance (covering the facilities, the caregivers, the employees, the patients, the equipment, the directors and officers of the corporation, etc) and e) many different taxes (on services, products, profits, etc)

Oh yea, I left out one particular little indirect cost, that is the cost of paying for all of the people who pay nothing or who pay an amount less than the actual cost of the delivery of services (this includes all Medicare and Medicaid transactions)

Hospitals have to make money to stay in business. When 65% of the customers do not cover the cost of services, the other 35% and benefactors (I. E. The government, err. I mean the tax payer) have to make up the difference.

The drug companies need to make a profit and earn back the R & D dollars sunk into developing, producing and selling the drug. Otherwise, they can't keep the lights on and pay the smart people who come up with this stuff. They also pay more for regulatory compliance and insurance in the USA. Further, many countries do not let them charge market rates or do not protect their intellectual property, so they cannot charge prices that enable them to make enough profits to generate the returns that they need.

Both providers and product makers have every right to sell the products and / or services drug for a price that the market will bear and make a profit (IT'S CALLED FREEDOM!

Wild Walleye

07-20-09, 14:15

OK, we are on a roll now, so let's look at an example. Let's say that an unlucky monger goes to Checker's Pub and a few days later, back in the states find some sort of gangrenous infection in / on his pecker. He winds up in the hospital and gets a series of treatments for hi maladies.

While in the hospital, he is a) tended to by a staff of doctors, nurses, orderlies and administrators (all of whom need to get paid for working at the hospital, otherwise, they would have to do something else or starve) b) comfortable in a nice room, c) fed and watered, d) administered drugs, e) subject to many tests (probably more than necessary, but healthcare providers must over-test to mitigate legal liability. Hopefully, his infection goes away and the medical staff is able to save his pecker to monger another day. In order for the hospital to be a sustainable business (that means make a profit and keep the lights on and doors open) they need to collect revenue from someone that exceeds the direct costs incurred while delivering services to that patient and the associated indirect costs allocated to that patient. Depending upon 'who' is paying, the answer will vary. Let's look at how the current system pays:

1. If the monger walked in the emergency room and declared that he was destitute or an illegal alien, his care is "free." Err, by free, I mean that the person receiving the care pays nothing—but here's the little secret – SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

2. If the monger is covered by Medicaid or Medi-care, the government 'reimburses' the hospital a set amount for the treatment. This amount has historically averaged 35% of the costs of treatment (the actual costs, not the billable revenue that a paying customer would be charged) That is right, the hospital just lost 65% of the costs incurred while caring for that patient. So if the hospital lost that money, how are they going to stay in business? SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

3. If the monger has medical insurance, he pays the deductable or co-pay and the insurance company pays the hospital a pre-arranged amount for the services rendered. Depending upon the specific procedure and the health care plan, the hospital may break even or maybe they might make one of those evil profit thingamagiggies (but not the type of profit margin that can sustain all of the non-payers and other costs that the hospital must absorb over the course of a year) Where does that money come from? SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

4. If the monger has the money and pays out of pocket when in need of medical care, he will receive a bill for the services render which will include the direct costs, the indirect costs and a profit margin that is mostly dictated by market forces. He can then look in the mirror, admire his health Johnson and see one of the people who is paying for all the other people and all of the 'extra' burdens the health care industry is under.

You, the out-of-pocket payers and the tax payers are the 'somebody else.' Under the proposed Obama-care, everyone (except Congress) will be forced into category #1. Someone please tell me how that will sustain itself?

Jackson

07-20-09, 15:23

What I do not understand in all of the debate concerning healthcare / insurance is politicians are able to find the bucks to fund a trumped up war in Iraq and yet cry like hell when they are asked to fund / reform a broken health care system. It just seems our priorities are all screwed up. The whole bunch of them (Democrats / Republicans) are a disgrace.Hi Damman,

With all due respect, the Democrat's stimulus plan (AKA "The State and Local Government Employee Job Security Act") cost more than the Afghanistan invasion, the liberation of Iraq, and the Hurricane Katrina cleanup combined.

The various proposed health care bills all will cost five times as much in the first 10 years than the total cost of the liberation of Iraq alone.

Do you think that the cost of the liberation of Iraq is the important issue now?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

07-20-09, 17:23

Do you think that the cost of the liberation of Iraq is the important issue now?Jax:

You hit the nail on the head. I haven't heard anyone, particularly any of the drones on the left, complaining about the cost of the war in Iraq, since. January. I wasn't paying attention back then, did something happen that made the war more affordable? Is there some other explaination?

I'm lost on this one.

Damman

07-20-09, 19:23

Jackson.

According to the LA Times (4/11/09) Iraq war cost about $694 billion and still counting. It will pale in comparison to any health plan when it is all said and done: veteran benefits and such over the next 50 years. These things do not end in some BS ceremony. For health care, a conservative estimate is $1 trillion over ten years: BBC. The numbers are mind boggling either way. The Iraq War is a tragedy and should never of happened. Of course, Iraq is my personal view and perhaps that is where we disagree. Guess my whole point is that we can always find the bucks to fight and perpetuate these trumped up wars, but never a buck for something domestic. For myself, our priorities are skewed. Iraq over health care, a no brainer in my view. Anyway, the whole issue is moot, the country is overextended and the money is spent. We are F....d.

And please, do not get me going on Katrina. A National embarrassment by the brain trust in Washington.

Hi Damman,

With all due respect, the Democrat's stimulus plan (AKA "The State and Local Government Employee Job Security Act") cost more than the Afghanistan invasion, the liberation of Iraq, and the Hurricane Katrina cleanup combined.

The various proposed health care bills all will cost five times as much in the first 10 years than the total cost of the liberation of Iraq alone.

Do you think that the cost of the liberation of Iraq is the important issue now?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

07-21-09, 01:42

This health care abomination is not just costly in terms of dollars (it will bankrupt the country) There is a cost that is priceless and that it our freedom. The House bill makes private insurance illegal for anyone who changes any part of their plan, after the grace period is over. You have no choice regarding your coverage. You will not have choice regarding your care.

If you think that they will stop at taking your health care choices away from you, you are wrong. You will not be able to chose the car you drive. You will not be able to chose to smoke. You will not be able to chose to run our business free of government interference. You will not be free.

For the party that claims to be for choice, I'm stumped at why they want to take all of our choices away from us and make them for us.

The costs and benefits of the Iraq war cannot be measured in dollars either. It was the right thing to do. We did it because we alone had the ability and fortitude to do it. We are losing on every international front under Obama. He is a child when it comes to international issues. Unfortunately, he is a full grown Marxist on internal affairs. Yes I said Marxist, I mean it, it is not hyperbole. I have a copy of Das Capital on my desk (the same one I read for the first time 25 years ago) and will bring it to Newport next time and let any of you read it for yourselves.

Miami Bob

07-21-09, 02:24

Insurance is not subject to price fixing regulation and anti-trust. When we were childern, the insurance industry lobbyists sold us a bill of goods that the dr's were making too much money---so we need managed care to control the evil doctors and hospitals. Now we are controlled by Huge powerful Health Carriers--w / near unlimited lobbying $$$ and the resultant political power.

Why do I buy my prescription drugs in BA instead of the USA? At 7% of the cost in the USA manufactured by the brazialian branches of the same companies that market indentical drugs for 15x's more in the USA. Is there a middle ground? I would know that there must be one.

What drug industry exerts it's influence so that the bushies make it illegal for medicare to even attempt to negotiate a bulk discount--this is not free market capitalism. There is no free market. You are an intelligent man and you are repeating the drug industry's corporate PR. Which is another incidental cost like the administration of huge managed care companies; drug companies and their lobbyists.

I truly believe that this is a broken system and that we have all been hoodwinked. What goes along with this is that the USA has the most expensive health care in the world by far and we are number 37 by other standards. Yes, we may have to make hard discissions about what we spend money on in the health care arena. How long does a brain dead human being with no chance of having a functioning brain spend in the ICU? God I don't know the answer, but delegating these choices to executives at a managed care organization not the answer.

The brits I know--not too many--like their national health care system and the people I know with money also have a secondary insurance to by pass the state or pay out of pocket if they don't want to wait.

WE don't have free market capitalism in health care in the usa--it might be offensive to your basic world view---but take a look at the movie sicko--yes sicko is loaded with over statement, but there is some truth there.

WAlley, please rent sicko and watch it. Forget your business education and work for a second and think from a policy perspective. We are #1 in spending and # 37 in quailty of care. Something is wrong

Wild Walleye

07-21-09, 12:19

We can certainly agree to disagree.

However, there are only two classes of Brits, that I have come across, that like the nationalized health system 1) those that are healthy and don't need it and 2) those who profit financially from that behemoth. The secondary system to which you allude is called CASH. When you call for an appointment, the receptionist will ask if you are a Public or Private patient. If you say Private, come on in. If you say Public, we'll see you in a month.

Rather than looking at some ranking that places our health care at #1 or #37 (which I doubt) answer me this, how many people leave the US to seek care vs. Those that come here for care?

The problems in health care started long before the Bushies got to DC.

Michael Moore is a whole other story. I would not knowingly put a dime in his pocket (or piss on him if he were on fire) There are plenty of credible sources for information, he is not one of them.

There is a difference between health insurance and a health plan. When we were kids, most people paid out of pocket for regular medical expenses and carried major medical insurance coverage for big, unexpected stuff. I think we should go back to those days. With free market solutions, there would be choices for those who wanted coverage for visits, etc and they would be appropriately priced. Today, everyone thinks that doctor visits should be $20 and drugs should be $5-15 dollars (health plan)

Think about your car. You carry insurance for accidents and you pay out of pocket for oil changes, tune ups, gas and wiper blades (unless maintenance is included in your deal with the car company - not the insurance company)

As for having difficulty finding a plan (as you mentioned earlier) I had a similar experience a year or so ago. At first, no plan seemed available with preexisting conditions (nothing serious) Finally, I found one that was much cheaper ($800/ mo) than what I was paying ($1800/ mo or so) that gave me all of the coverage I wanted but with higher out of pocket costs. That's fine with me. I keep $12k in my pocket. If I spend more out of pocket for doctor visits and drugs, I am still not going to spend $12K in the course of a year.

You have probably already tried healthplanone. Com if not, give it a try. Also, as you mentioned previously, it is easier to get a specific individual covered through a group (benefit companies look to bury the couple of un-insurable people within a group to slide it by the underwriter)

There is also a big reason that the government wants to destroy private health insurance, money. Think about the cash reserves that the private insurance industry has to keep in order to underpin their policies. Where do you think that money is going to go? What do you think the government will do with it? Put it in a "Lock Box?" I doubt it. They will squander it (think medi-care, medicaid and social security) If you thin Madoff was bad (I do) he only stole $50B in one ponzi scheme. The government will steal many times that through these three ponzi schemes.

Jackson

07-21-09, 12:25

Walley, please rent sicko and watch it.MB,

With all due respect, every Michael Moore movie I've seen was about as factually accurate as "Shrek", so why would I want to see another of his liberal propaganda pieces?

In fact, the only reason I might even consider watching it is because it was YOU that suggested it, but I'd still have my reservations.

Thanks,

Jackson

Rock Harders

07-21-09, 12:54

Wild Walleye

07-21-09, 13:45

What you are forgetting to mention, and where you are totally and completely factually inaccurate is the concept of US hospitals as market driven businesses. The FACT is that US hospitals operate as NOT FOR PROFIT (the same as a religious entity or charity) organizations which means they DO NOT have to pay taxes on any services they provide or revenues they generate.Me thinks you are party correct. 'Not for Profit' is a legal designation for certain types of organizations that are exempt from certain taxes. Where you seem to have missed the point is the this designation does provide magical pixie dust that will instantly turn losses into break even or better. If a hospital or any company loses money, it loses money. If it does it long enough, it will be bankrupt. It doesn't matter if the money is spent on taxes, gauze bandages or chicas. If revenue is less than expenses, you lose money.

For all your claims about the US having the best medical care in the world, the FACT is that US citizens do not rank among the top 10 in the world in life expectancy, happiness, or commonality of disease, despite the US spending more than any other country by far on health careMy statement of my well-founded opinion stands. I do not consider most of those items to be the single determinant of quality of care, nor do I believe that 'happiness' can be scientifically measured for apples:apples comparisons.

(17% of GDP I believe) Under the proposed Obamacare plan, it will be much, much more than 17%. Do you think that will increase our standing in the global list of happy countries?

The fact that you think paying $10,000 per year ($800/ month) should tell you something.It does. I thought you said you worked in accounting and billing? It says to me that I am saving $12k / year and having greater control over my health care expenditures.

What is you were only making $30k per year (pre-tax) How could you possibly afford that number? I would chose a different plan.

El Queso

07-21-09, 13:56

There is a difference between health insurance and a health plan. When we were kids, most people paid out of pocket for regular medical expenses and carried major medical insurance coverage for big, unexpected stuff. I think we should go back to those days. With free market solutions, there would be choices for those who wanted coverage for visits, etc and they would be appropriately priced. Today, everyone thinks that doctor visits should be $20 and drugs should be $5-15 dollars (health plan)A-FREAKING-MEN! (as in amen!)

SteveC

07-21-09, 18:10

I'm not getting into that 'Obama is a Marxist' crap, but I couldn't resist replying to this.

"However, there are only two classes of Brits, that I have come across, that like the nationalized health system 1) those that are healthy and don't need it and 2) those who profit financially from that behemoth. The secondary system to which you allude is called CASH. When you call for an appointment, the receptionist will ask if you are a Public or Private patient. If you say Private, come on in. If you say Public, we'll see you in a month."

I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service. And when I go back to visit family and need to see a doctor, I can, if not the same day, then the next. Nobody waits a month. Nobody. And the receptionists don't ask 'Public or Private'; not sure who told you that, but obviously someone who doesn't use the service. I'm not saying its perfect, but I know which one I'd prefer to rely on. And it doesn't cost 17% of GDP either (according to Rock Harders)

Just for information.

Wally Foot

07-21-09, 18:38

I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service. And when I go back to visit family and need to see a doctor, I can, if not the same day, then the next. Nobody waits a month. Nobody. And the receptionists don't ask 'Public or Private'; not sure who told you that, but obviously someone who doesn't use the service. I'm not saying its perfect, but I know which one I'd prefer to rely on. And it doesn't cost 17% of GDP either (according to Rock Harders)

Just for information.Absolutely spot on, Steve C.

Wild Walleye

07-21-09, 18:53

I'm not getting into that 'Obama is a Marxist' crapMy personal opinion. I am not looking to convert anyone to my perspective, time and the destruction of the US economy and way of life will be far more effective 'visual aids.'

I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service.You are obviously much more likable and outgoing than I am (at least 10X so) You know lots of Brits. I qualified my statement to include Brit's that I have come across (I. E. That I know, which number around 100) The Public / private experiences includes my first hand experience and those of family and friends seeking immediate care for non-life-threatening, minor emergencies.

As for Michael Moore, on further reflection, we should all go back and watch Roger & Me and remind ourselves of what he as advocating then. I think that worked out pretty well for GM. We should all feel comfortable that this time, with Sicko, he might be right. Unless he is wrong, again.

Stan Da Man

07-21-09, 18:57

Great posts, Walleye. You've laid out in plain terms the reasons the system costs what it does. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is that hospitals will not refuse treatment to anyone. Now, that's a bit of an overstatement, but it is the reason there is such a high cost for acquiring care if you are not already in an HMO or eligible via medicare.

But, I don't see the issue going away. Those that can't afford coverage will still get treatment. Those who are in plans (HMO, PPO or medicare) will still get discounted coverage because their providers have negotiating leverage, either because they are the government or because they have a large volume of subscribers.

There is another problem, I believe, and it is that the cost of HMOs and PPOs is still out of reach for many who otherwise might elect it. My company has over 700 employees. We pay 80% of the HMO premium for any full-time equivalent employee who wants coverage. Still, less than 50% elect the coverage. Indeed, one of our clients even picks up half of the remaining 20% and we still have just slightly over 50% of the employees assigned to that client who opt for coverage. There are two reasons for this: (a) many still can't afford the premium; and / or (be) many think they're bulletproof and just won't opt for coverage that they might not need.

So, what's the solution? I don't know. I do think the Obama plan is a step in the wrong direction. Arguably, I should favor his plan because most of our competitors don't offer any health care coverage, so his plan might even the playing field by a small measure. But, my principal opposition is that I think his plan will not reduce costs and, even worse, he wants to add 5% to may tax bill to help pay for it even though we're already offering coverage to all of our full-time employees. How is that fair?

So, I don't know what the solution is. I do know that health insurance is not my biggest headache -- that would be worker's comp, which costs even more. The current health care system is far from perfect, but I haven't heard a better plan. In some ways, it's like Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all others that have ever been tried.

Admittedly, that last point is debatable. But, I do think it speaks volumes when many who seek critical care flock to the U. S. Even though they are covered under a system that is arguably "better."

Wild Walleye

07-21-09, 19:27

Great posts, Walleye. You've laid out in plain terms the reasons the system costs what it does. Thanks. I believe that it is a lack of understanding regarding the cost side of this issue that leaves most people scratching their heads. If lots of people pay nothing or less than the costs incurred treating them, the money has to come from somewhere.

You raise many excellent points.

The biggest factor, in my opinion, is that hospitals will not refuse treatment to anyone. Now, that's a bit of an overstatement, No, it isn't. Anyone, please cite me a situation where someone has been refused urgent medical care at a US hospital.

but it is the reason there is such a high cost for acquiring care if you are not already in an HMO or eligible via medicare.The reason it is so expensive is that the average person is not paying for what they are getting. They are paying for what they are getting plus they are paying for those who do not pay.

But, I don't see the issue going away. Those that can't afford coverage will still get treatment. Those who are in plans (HMO, PPO or medicare) will still get discounted coverage because their providers have negotiating leverage, either because they are the government or because they have a large volume of subscribers.Correct you are, the issues will not be going away but your choice will be. The current House plan will eliminate your private plans and will make the cost of doing business for private insurers unbearable and they will leave the market. The only choices that will be left are the government plan and paying cash.

There is another problem, I believe, and it is that the cost of HMOs and PPOs is still out of reach for many who otherwise might elect it. Why not have insurance for major medical and pay out of pocket for everyday medical expenses?

My company has over 700 employees. We pay 80% of the HMO premium for any full-time equivalent employee who wants coverage. Still, less than 50% elect the coverage. Indeed, one of our clients even picks up half of the remaining 20% and we still have just slightly over 50% of the employees assigned to that client who opt for coverage. There are two reasons for this: (a) many still can't afford the premium; and / or (be) many think they're bulletproof and just won't opt for coverage that they might not need.

Unless your company is paying slave wages, these people are electing not to participate for one of two reasons: 1) they are covered by another plan (spouse, domestic partner, family pet, whatever) or 2) the chose to spend that money on something else which they deem to be more important than a health plan (flat screen tv, latin pussy, you name it) I do not know what plans your company offers but with the very generous contribution of 80% , there must be a plan that is affordable (I. E. Less than $1.5k per year in employee contribution for basic coverage)

So, what's the solution?

Evolve to a more market driven system (improve what we currently have) that offers a variety from health plans to health insurance. Give people the option to have insurance for major medical and pay out of pocket for everyday medical expenses. People have to pay for what they consume. For those that cannot (not those that chose not to have coverage) get coverage due to hardship we already have a safety net (which is in need of improvement)

I don't know. I do think the Obama plan is a step in the wrong direction.

I am inclined to agree with you here.

Arguably, I should favor his plan because most of our competitors don't offer any health care coverage, so his plan might even the playing field by a small measure.

Yes it will. Your company will ultimately stop offering health benefits so the field will be level with your competitors and your company will have one less attractive benefit with which to woo the best and brightest employees. Yes, this includes your personal benefits too.

But, my principal opposition is that I think his plan will not reduce costs and, even worse, he wants to add 5% to may tax bill to help pay for it even though we're already offering coverage to all of our full-time employees. How is that fair?

Fair? Who said anything about fair? Bend over.

The current health care system is far from perfect, but I haven't heard a better plan. In some ways, it's like Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all others that have ever been tried.

Right you are. Why should we destroy the system that currently covers 84% of all Americans to address the 16% (most of whom chose to forgo coverage)

But, I do think it speaks volumes when many who seek critical care flock to the U. S. Even though they are covered under a system that is arguably "better."

El Alamo

07-21-09, 20:06

Whenever we, i. e. The United States, is acting as stooges for Chavez, Norega, Castro and the idiot despots from Boliva and Ecudaor I wonder what our fucking government, under the Rhodes Scholar wantabe Obama, is thinking.

We impeached Nixon because he violated our Constitution.

The Honduran government impeached their Hondorun president ie. Kicked the fucking despot out for violating the Hondoran Constitution.

What type of of pseudo intellectual imbecile do we have sitting in the White House of the United States (a clue for peope recovering from brain removals or hundreds of electro shock treatments. We have the second coming of that idiot Jimmy "shit for brains" Carter.

Another possiblity is that Obama is trying to wrangle blow jobs from Chavez and Castro. On the other hand, perhaps Obama is hoping to give Chavez and Castro blow jobs.

Member #4112

07-21-09, 20:42

The Carmel One is going to make Jimmy (shit for brains / I only lusted in my heart) Carter look GOOD in retrospect!

QuakHunter

07-21-09, 21:56

SteveC

07-21-09, 22:17

Not sure of % of gdp, but for my dental care I'm glad I live in Argentina. In the UK they tell me these days its expensive and difficult to get easy access. It was a lot better 10 years ago but I've had no recent experience so I'm not the best source on this.

Jackson

07-22-09, 00:27

And Bush as well!Hey Sid,

Just out of courisity, what was the last US President that you actually liked?

Thanks,

Jackson

Miami Bob

07-22-09, 02:29

because you are intelligent enough to look beyond the propaganda and see the human stories that get lost. WE do not have great health care in the usa, we have expensive healthcare and more expensive equipment--that's it. The abuse of the power grabbed by the industry is shocking--In the USA we let this happen. WE don't regulate. WE don't have an equitable system. Walley can pay us$1800 per month for insurance, 90% can't.

Seperate the propanda and Michael More's personal style or lack of style to watch some of the human stoies that he tells: they are shocking. Based upon my personal and professional experience--there is quite a bit of truth in these stories. I could spell out hundreds of these stories from my old files. I have virtually stopped representing individuals experiencing medical misadventures--but I still do some. Because it is the right thing to do. Because of the abuse of basic human dignity based upon dollars. I enjoy suing health insurance companies--they are abusive bullies who have paid off congress: both the rebublicans and the democrats.

I've seen Walley give money to the little professional beggars on junin based upon his sense of passion and compassion. Walley what we are doing now is just plain wrong. WE are number 37--it's not fantacy. WE reward profit and not quality. WE fail to regulate and there is only a fantacy of any type of free market.

Trebek

07-22-09, 06:12

Wild Willyeye-

What you are forgetting to mention, and where you are totally and completely factually inaccurate is the concept of US hospitals as market driven businesses. The FACT is that US hospitals operate as NOT FOR PROFIT (the same as a religious entity or charity) organizations which means they DO NOT have to pay taxes on any services they provide or revenues they generate. US hospitals are classified as such because they must provide treatment to all who come seeking it regardless of one's ability to pay. SOME hospitals do generate a profit and this money goes as bonuses to the top level directors and executives of the hospital or corporate entity. I worked in the accounting / billing department of a major US hospital owner / operator for a year back in 2000.

For all your claims about the US having the best medical care in the world, the FACT is that US citizens do not rank among the top 10 in the world in life expectancy, happiness, or commonality of disease, despite the US spending more than any other country by far on health care (17% of GDP I believe) The fact that you think paying $10,000 per year ($800/ month) should tell you something. What is you were only making $30k per year (pre-tax) How could you possibly afford that number?

Suerte,

Rock HardersRock Harders --

Some American hospitals are non profit and others are for profit. The non profit operate in almost the exact same profit driven fashion, except they are required to give some form of charity.

In addition US hospitals are required to provide emergency treatment and that's it. Follow up care is not required.

The AMA has recently announced it's support of the Public Health Insurance option. Why? Well, doctors do not exactly have the power they think themselves to have.

The real sticklers are Pharmaceuticals the Insurance industries. But even those with terrific coverage face a disappointment when faced with submitting large claims for serious issues.

Miami Bob

07-22-09, 10:33

He was a true believer in the power of the invisible hand of the free market. Let companies fail if they aren't competetive. Up-tick rule---let short sellers have the freedom in an unregulated market to destroy capital without messy government interference. Now that's true freedom.

Miami Bob

07-22-09, 11:16

I asked him when my last Miami root canal costs us$1300. He has a degree from NYU and owns an implant clinic in LA. His response was greed. I asked why in Miami it took three visits and lot's of pain and a big production. His assisatant did it in 10 minutes and I did not realize that they had actually done the root canal. DR Lee said that he could not imagine that the North American dentist would intentionally put on a big show to justify the price, but that more than 90% of the root canal are simple basic and quick.

DR Lee's clinic in LA charges 50% of the going price for implants in LA. HE is making a lot of money based on volume and is very happy. I am not saying that North American dentists are evil or thieves, just what DR Lee tells me. He could adopt the us model and move to LA to maximize his profit, but prefers the quality of life in BA and takes lot's of vacations. During the last farmer's crisis he was buying quality farm land and leasing it back to the farmers.

Trebek

07-22-09, 11:53

It says they count on grassroots supporters "just like you." Me, them, who? Took me a few minutes to, "get it."

Wild Walleye

07-22-09, 14:26

Unless they are dealing with cash-only patients. If there is any kind of health plan, dental plan or insurance the price for most all procedures is "pre-negotiated" (I. E. Set) by the large, monolithic insurance company and the service provider can take it or leave it.

In most service businesses, you develop a service that people want. You figure out how much that service costs you to provide and you add a margin on top of that cost that will provide you with a positive cash flow after taxes.

If you are a private practice dentist, for example, you have cover all of the start-up costs and overhead in order to deliver service.

Let's look at a basic practice in a suburban area (nice urban area would be more expensive) with a 2,000 sqft office, 3 admin staff (receptionist, billing / accounting, office manager) four hygienists / assistants (5 chairs, doc + 4) The first day the dentist opens his door for business, he is potentially $250K in debt ($100k school debt, $150K start-up costs if he rents the space) Monthly operating costs would be about $62K (rent, salaries, benefits, insurance, interest and principal on loans) before the dentist makes a dime. Therefore, he needs to make $62K plus a reasonable margin upon which he can live, feed his family and put some money away for a rainy day. How much should a dentist make? All that school, time, talent? Lets be cheap and say he only deserves to make $240k per year (pre-tax) or $83/ hr (assuming he does 20 hrs of work related to running the business per week in addition to the dental work) Therefore, he needs to make $82K per month or $4,100 per day or $512.50 per hour to make ends meet (based on 2 weeks vacation and 10 holidays per year) That is $102.50/ chair / hour. Now we all know that he isn't going to have all five chairs occupied 8hrs / day so let's say he is very popular and has a 65% occupancy, so his cost is $788 per hour for the office ($157/ hour / chair) before he takes any x-rays, uses any technology or runs any tests on you.

If for some reason the office is closed for a day, the cost goes up to $165/ chair / hour, and so on.

If the insurance company sets the price for a cleaning at $100, then he has to make up the other $57 somewhere else. If 75% of his normal monthly business is cleanings, the other 25% have to include larger margins to cover his overhead.

Punter 127

07-22-09, 16:32

Herbert Hoover--was a true free market kind of guy

He was a true believer in the power of the invisible hand of the free market. Let companies fail if they aren't competetive. Up-tick rule---let short sellers have the freedom in an unregulated market to destroy capital without messy government interference. Now that's true freedom. So we should assume you are calling for an end to the free market and a move to socialism?

IMHO Hoover's economics were statist.

Did you know Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republicans of "leading the country down the path of socialism’?

New Dealer Rexford Tugwell later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started." Who was Rexford Tugwell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rexford_Tugwell

We may have had Hoovervilles in the thirties but I suspect Obamas "trickle up poverty" is going to give us years of high unemployment, deflation and/or stagnation, we could see the S&P with big swings for several years, going possibly as low as 500, if not outright total collapse of our economic system.

We need to stop spending money we don’t have and stimulate job creation, if we don’t the question becomes:

Will Obamavilles be any better that Hoovervilles?

Stan Da Man

07-22-09, 19:06

Great job, again, Walleye. It's good to put these things in context, and the best way to do that is with numbers. Thanks

Rock Harders

07-22-09, 22:21

Mongers,

This thread has become so pathetic (even worse than Fox News, the National Enquirer, Sean Hannity and Jackson Limbaugh combined) and bankrupt on new ideas (much like the Republican party) that I have decided to stop posting here.

Reasonably intelligent dialogue clearly is not possible when the participants keep posting this rubbish.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Miami Bob

07-23-09, 01:58

I was very resistant to accept this concept. I want to thank you for the effort that you made to explain the hows and why non-socialized medicine will never provide any type of human result. I owe both Stan and yourself a thank you for forcing me to clarify my thinking on this set of issues. I want the public option now and I am going to make the contacts to do volunteer work and make financial contributions to back-up my newly found convictions. If the private sector can compete, let them survive, else let them go the way of buggy whip factories. I consciously chose to have quasi-competent public employees in the drivers' seat, rather than B-school grads making the tough decisions on rationing health care motivated 100% by profit. I never thought that I could accept the concept of a governmet run system, now I see that there is no other moral option.

90% of the USA will benefit from socialized medicine and Stan and your and I can readily afford to share the cost. I don't really care what any of you think of the policy decision, because you all have a religious zeal for a fantasy of a free market universe which only exists in a set of assumptions that are accepted the same way the one makes a religious leap of faith.

Healthcare should not be approached as a first year B-school case study. I love you on a personal level Walley, but I now will just agree to disagree--morally you are on the wrong side of this issue.

Sid--keep-up the long cut and paste jobs. It makes it more difficult to follow the thoughtful commentary that Walley and Stan spend time composing. Whether I aggree or disaggree with him, but Walley devotes real time and thought to his postings and tries to make them both educational and fun. I appreciate your right to post, but a summary and link would do the job quite effectively so that the thoughtful original anaysis of some of the others posting would be more readily available.

AS an intelligent man who I respect--I would like to see more of Sid's thoughts and analysis--not ranting or mere re-prints of long articles.

ROCK--don't stop participating. The only people who can afford to spend significant mongering time in BA are either wealthy people motivated to protect that wealth for the seed of their seed; people doing business in Argentina like Walley and myself; retired people or ex-expatriates who have decided not to live in the usa any longer. I am not including argentines who read this site nor other nationalities, because they really don't participate here. Most are right wing Wall Street types who can pay cash for medical care if needed; don't need Medicare or Social Security and do belive in class war fare---I don't give a shit about poorer people and their lives--I've got mine and I want to protect it. In life you will deal with many different types of people. You should have in your skill-set the ability to converse with people with whom you disaggree. This is important in life.

Obama is not an effective political leader at this point and will not likely pass the public option at this point in time. Becuase of the financial mess today--it might really not be the right time to spend the money. The back and forth with Walley has convinced me and changed my mind on the subject. I will get involved and worked towards a future time when we will have a public option. If I did not have diolog with people with different points of view, I would not not been able to comfortably make such a decsion.

Wild Walleye

07-23-09, 12:57

I never thought that I could accept the concept of a governmet run system, now I see that there is no other moral option.Please show me one historical example of moral socialism.

90% of the usa will benefit from socialized medicine and stan and your and I can readily afford to share the cost. Under the current house plan, 84.3 million Americans will lose their private health care. I didn't realize that there are 843 million Americans. You, Stan and I can only subsidize others up and to the point that we run out of money.

you all have a religious zeal for a fantasy of a free market universe which only exists in a set of assumptions that are accepted the same way the one makes a religious leap of faith.There may be zeal but not for fantasy (except when pondering nights out in Bs As) There are facts such as 1+1=2 and if you don't bring in more money than you spend, you lose money. There is a relatively finite supply of money (despite BHO's US Government is printing mass amounts of currency) once you take it all, there is no more to take.

Healthcare should not be approached as a first year be-school case study.Not sure about that. One of the first things they tried to teach me (my parents beat them to the punch by about 20 years) was that a company (with any prayer of sustainability) needed to bring in more money than it spent.

The sources of cash for a company can take different forms (on the cash flow statement they are classified as income from operations, investing activities and financing activities) but at the end of the day, in the real world, sources of cash must be greater than uses of cash.

I love you on a personal level walley, but I now will just agree to disagree--morally you are on the wrong side of this issue.Bob, I have great respect for you, your opinions and your right to express those opinions, even when the are wrong. If I limited my circle of friends to just middle-of-the-road independents like myself, life would be pretty boring. This is one issue where I am on the morally superior side. Don't let emotions and hope for a Utopian solution cloud your vision of what will produce the best result.

Most are right wing wall street types who can pay cash for medical care if needed; don't need medicare or social security and do belive in class war fare---I don't give a shit about poorer people and their lives--I've got mine and I want to protect it. In life you will deal with many different types of people. I thought you said you loved me? In 1990, before becoming a heartless denizen of Wall Street, I was for all intent and purpose homeless as well as unemployed and destitute. Were it not for the kindness of friends and family, I would have been on the street. I knew that I needed to improve my chances for getting ahead so I borrowed $50K (I was fortunate that I could do this) to go to a top 10 US be-school, graduated with a 3.5GPA (despite my learning disability) and ventured forth into the worst hiring market in years. There were no jobs, so I made one. In my first year I made about $50K (less than half of what the first year investment bankers made) Year 2 about $75K and in year three I made enough to retire on at age 32. I didn't retire, I kept pouring the funds back into building business and creating jobs and opportunities for others as well as myself. In '98 the Asian Flu did some real damage, the contested election of '99 and the dotcom bust nearly killed me. I started over again. There were no bailouts no assistance and I didn't want any. I am responsible for making my own way. I have no expectations that social security or medicare will be solvent when I reach that age, therefore, any payments into them are just taxes to be pissed away by the government. If some day I retire, it will be based upon being able to afford retirement and private health insurance (if such a thing still exists) If not in that position, I'll keep packing my lunch pail and heading to the salt mines.

You should have in your skill-set the ability to converse with people with whom you disaggree. This is important in life.Agreed. Although, I still respectfully disagree with you on almost all the other points.

Obama is not an effective political leader at this point and will not likely pass the public option at this point in time. Becuase of the financial mess today--it might really not be the right time to spend the money.Here's my editorial contribution: Obama has jumped the shark. The reality of it is that he is an excellent performer / actor (so was Reagan) however, he has never done anything other than school, community organizing (whatever that is) run for office and spend 160ish days in the Senate. He benefited from a blindly devoted press that has never once asked him a hard question or sought the truth on any number of important issues. He has never made a payroll, never studied economics, never read a bill (either as a senator or president) The press conference last night (if the press did its job) was an unmitigated disaster for BHO. In fact, as I was hearing it, I was thinking that it could possibly be the nail in the coffin for Obama care. In the Q & A, while he only got softball questions, he couldn't even answer them. He sounded like a rambling drunk. He could not articulate what the plan is, how it is going to make things better, how it won't make things worse or how it is going to be paid for.

Member #4112

07-23-09, 13:21

Do you really want the government running healthcare in the US?

Consider this; Medicare is a government run healthcare system. The government makes the rules, determines the benefits, determines payment for services and administers the entire system. Just in case you didn't notice Medicare will be BANKRUPT in a few years. When first funded it cost $3 Billion a year with a projected cost $12 Billion in the mid 1990's, but the cost by then had ballooned to over $200 Billion. (Funny how when government gets involved in anything the cost seems to go through the ceiling) So the government has been in defined segment of healthcare for years. Based upon governments past 40 year track record in management of this segment of healthcare I ask you again;

Do you really want the government running healthcare in the US?

Damman

07-23-09, 16:07

Do you really want the government running healthcare in the US? Find the argument of how Medicare costs have exploded over its lifetime as an example of Government's inability to manage health care is flawed. The whole point of the national debate on health care is its high cost as a whole: Medicare / private. Every sector is out of control. There are many reason for the increased costs, the primary ones are technology and the other is the physchy of the American people. I particularly wish to pick on the American women. They seem to have a penchant for visiting doctors and beg to have the doctor find something wrong with them. They visit doctors for everything and anything. Like weighing three hundred pounds has nothing to do with eating too much.

Many physicians believe that demanding patients are the reason they are delivering so much unnecessary care.

Perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health.http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/health_care_costs.html

Another area where Medicare takes it in the shorts is when it becomes the primary carrier. I do not know all the terms, but when a person turns 65, Medicare becomes the primary insurer and the citizen's private insurance becomes the secondary provider. Basically, Medicare is on the hook for the majority of the tab and the private insurer is suppose to pick up the remainder. In the beginning, Medicare was never designed to be the primary carrier for the insured. However, through lobbying and Ronny boy, the private insurers got their way, unload the higher risk clients on the Government: 65+. Good deal if you are an insurer. BTW, the clients private insurance premiums do not change. It makes no sense to me.

Like to consider myself a free market guy, but there are areas when Government control / regulation has its place: utilities. Think health-care's time has come.

El Alamo

07-23-09, 18:02

I never thought I would say this, but the United States might benefit by taking a page out of the Argentine playbook.

This may have been mentionned on this thread before. I am not sure.

However, most prescription medications, except scheduled or controlled substances, should not require a doctors signature. If you want to treat your cold with an antibiotic, which is a completely useless therapy for colds, go ahead. Skip the $100 to $5000 office/emergency room visit you would otherwise drop on society.

When you want your allergy medicine or viagra prescription refilled, skip the expensive trip through the doctors office.

In fact, we are going in this direction with medicines such as Prilosec, Tagamet etc. which are now over the counter.

Who opposes this. You guessed it. Doctors, physician assistants and nurse practionners who would have to trade in their BMW's for clunkers.

Member #4112

07-23-09, 19:46

Thanks for making my case for me. Medicare and Medicaid as well as Social Security have morphed from the helpful programs they were designed to be into cash guzzling monsters by the very political machine poised to take over all healthcare.

Just who do you think is going to "take in the shorts" when there are no more private health insurers and only the government plan. (A plan I might add Congress is not on - sort of like social security Congress is not on it either - they the priviliged few have a private health care and retirement system)

Perhaps you don't realize it but most Americans consume over 80% of their lifetime healthcare spending in the last years of their lifes. Under this plan you better die young or when you hit your 60's your wonderful government healthcare plan is going to tell you to go home and die - got no money for you. Don't belive it? If not why does this new healthcare need a government board to determine what services are needed, what services are not and who gets those services.

I'm not saying our current plan is all roses but it is a hell of a lot better than most. The truth is brutal - you want the most expensive healthcare with the least results - go with goverment.

Wild Walleye

07-23-09, 22:59

Even the Obama Times (formerly known as the New York Times who's tag line is "All the Disinformation Fit to Print") savaged him over the colossal failure of the press conference last night. Fortunately, a guilty conscience is emerging, at least with one reporter, on the willing participation to the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

His ineptitude last night highlighted that he is out of his depth. It was similar to Toto peeling back the curtain on 'the man behind the curtain' to expose a hapless fraud. Hopefully, it isn't too little too late.

It isn't about talking points or playing to polls. At some point, a man has to say, this is what I believe in, and this is what I am going to do (of course this doesn't just apply to internal conversations in one's head whilst standing at the bar in Newport)

I get loads of shit from friends and family about my hard-line stance on certain subjects. They ask me "why can't you just compromise?" To which I respond, "if I know that I am right, how can I agree to accept something that I know to be wrong?" (again, please see prior caveat)

Miami Bob

07-24-09, 01:19

I've witnessed you show compassion. I know that there are items that you place value on that exist in a sphere outside of of analysis of cash flow: family, truth, human kindness and compassion. There are times when one makes a decision: this is just wrong and we may have the capacity to make it right. You consider the wars in the middle east in that framework irregardless of cost and other choices that could have been made.

Western europe and scandinavia have socialized medicine, longer life expectancies and higher rates of satisfaction with health care than we have in the usa. Their higher tax structures has had consequences of the types you suggest. I now accept that trade off because there is no moral way[based upon my view of what is right and wrong that has almost zero to do with economics] to allocate basic healthcare to the private sector's control unless they can be so cost effective to compete with the public option.

Our views on these subjects may be so different that dialog is not possible because we are looking at the issues from completely different places--we are talking about different things--our basic values on these issues may differ even if we may have overlaps on other subjects. Eg I refuse to discuss politics with my friend Jackson--whose company and friendship I enjoy and value.

I dout that you consider western europe and scandinavia is be at root completely amoral based on policies decisions and generally accepted social values which might differ from your basic point oif view. FDR's move of the usa into might might be labled "socialist type policy decisions" to help the usa through the great depression. Nixon's decision to support medicare--socialized medicine-- Eveything in life of value cannot only be seen as a be-school case study.

YES, I aggree that many policy decisions need more care, scrutiny and analysis. All of economics makes basic assumptions which might may be useful to assistance us with analysis and planning. But those assumptions are still assumptions, not facts nor universal truths. There are times and places when you might say it is just wrong despite the analysis of cash flows. Not in making an investment decision generally--but maybe making decions about the basic value of a human being--life, death, suffering, pain, family and whatever spiritual beliefs that you might have nor not have.

WE are talking about different things. My remarks directly to ROCK--were not intended to be insults directed to you. I respect and like you and hopefully eventually I will call you a friend, but we will disagree about politics and values related to health care.

Shane44

07-24-09, 14:39

Barack Obama was out jogging one morning when he tripped, fell over a bridge railing and landed in the creek below.

Before the Secret Service guys could get to him, 3 kids who were fishing pulled him out of the water. He was so grateful he offered the kids whatever they wanted.

The first kid said, 'I want to go to Disneyland.'

Barack said, 'No problem, I'll take you there on my special airplane.

The second kid said, 'I want a new pair of Nike Air Jordan shoes.'

Barack said, 'I'll get them for you and even have Michael Jordan sign them!'

The third kid said, ' I want a motorized wheelchair with a built in TV and stereo headset!'

Barack was a little perplexed by this and said, 'But you don't look like you're handicapped.'

The kid said, 'I will be after my dad finds out I saved your ass from drowning.'

Rock Harders

07-24-09, 17:54

Sidney,

Ford borrowed money from PRIVATE equity lenders because they were deemed to have the credit-worthiness back in 2006 to obtain such loans. This loan was taken before the current meltdown because Ford knew back in 2006 that its then business plan was unsustainable and it needed to obtain financing to pay for a huge corporate reorganization. THAT is the hallmark of competent management. GM and Chrysler drove themselves into the ground in the face of bankruptcy and are / were such basket cases that no private equity firms would lend them any money (in Chrysler's case, the private equity firm that owned them had access to billions of dollars and refused to invest even one dollar more in one of its own holdings) so the lender of last resort was the GOVERNMENT (which IMO should have just let them both die) The bottom line is that FORD makes excellent cars that will sell well in the years to come in the US market and will be profitable by 2011. Ford's stock will be worth $30 USD / share again within the next 48 months.

Economies move in cycles and the big boys with competent management can make it through the lean times. ALL the major automakers faced a huge decline in sales (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, GM, Chrysler) but only GM and Chrysler went under. GM and Chrysler died because of GROSS MISMANAGEMENT and for no other reason.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Rock Harders

07-24-09, 18:34

Jackson-

Please start a new thread titled "US Economy" so I do not have to post in the "American politics during the Obama Administration" thread.

Thanks,

Rock Harders

Tiny12

07-24-09, 19:47

Rock Harders,

I must be in the twilight zone, because I agree with 95% of what you've been posting in this thread recently. I'd argue though that GM and Chrysler didn't die because of gross mismanagement and for no other reason. The unions had a lot to do with it, although I guess you can blame management too for compensation, pension and medical costs around $80 per hour worked. And for a system where management and workers are at each others throats instead of working as a team.

Sidney is right, the immediate downfall was the downturn in sales. As you noted, all the auto manufacturers were hit. Even Toyota took almost a 50% hit to sales. If you've got leverage and high fixed costs, that's a potential recipe for disaster. I guess you and he agree that's where Ford did well, by building up a big cash cushion before the downturn.

But GM had $25 billion in cash and $44 billion in borrowings at year end 2007, going into the downturn. That's a lot of cash. Looking back at historical interest rates, at year end 2007, the Fed Funds rate was 4.25% and GM's bonds were yielding about 11%. So by maintaining a $25 billion cash cushion insted of paying off debt, GM might have been spending about (11%-4.25%) x 25 billion, or $1.7 billion per year extra in net interest expense. Yields on Ford debt and GM debt at 12/31/07 were pretty similar, around 11% or 12%. So, in other words, I don't think it's fair to say that GM management was incompetent because they didn't hold enough cash. Or that GM couldn't refinance at affordable interest rates while Ford could. But to be honest, unlike you, I have no idea what private equity firms were willing to do for Ford vs. GM and Chrysler in 2006 or 2007.

I took a look at Ford about 6 months ago, and do not believe they're in as good of shape as you do. I'd be very reluctant to buy the shares.

Jackson

07-24-09, 20:36

Jackson-

Please start a new thread titled "US Economy" so I do not have to post in the "American politics during the Obama Administration" thread.

Thanks,

Rock HardersHey Rock,

I don't blame you for wanting to distance the Messiah from the economy that he is "managing".

Anyway, as you requested...

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5644

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

07-24-09, 23:56

RH:

Change the name, put lipstick on the pig, whatever you want, this mess is BHO's not matter how you slice it.

He inherited a ~$400B deficit, which he immediately more than quadrupled to what CBO expects to be $1.85T (that's 1.85 trillion (I. E. 1,850 billion dollars or AR$7,030,000,000,000 or 28 billion hours of completo with BBBJ at Junin 1633) within his first six months. At two loads per hour, that's 18 million gallons of cum. That's one hell of a bukake film.

The spending has all been political paybacks and payoffs. So don't bother getting into specifics, which are apparently a weak spot for lefties (I've known this for a while)

Bob, you had me at hello. At least I knew I loved you when I discovered the gem at the other end of the telephone number you gave me. Some of my best friends are extreme liberals. We can debate and at the end of the day, we can agree to disagree and part friends. I am passionate about my beliefs and I know when I am right. I do not hold against my friends who do not agree (I write it off as due to some form of mental defect--I'm joking)

You know that I am: 1) a smart ass prick (one of my more endearing qualities--perhaps my only one) 2) in possession of an IQ barely north of room temperature, 3) an individual that practices compassion in my daily life, and 4) a conservative that believes in smaller government and more personal responsibility (err. Excluding certain endeavors) I will also gladly buy you one drink for each time I offended your liberal sensitivities (provided you return the favor with translation services) By the way, I also have great respect for Dodger Bulldog, who I believe is left of my middle of the road position, with whom I hope to share a few more beers in our favorite drinking hole.

I respect extreme liberals who are willing to argue for what they believe and are willing to debate far more than 'moderates' from either party who are swayed by flimsy news stories or bumper sticker slogans and have no beliefs.

I love to debate ideas and ideals. I love being right (as in correct, not Right) and am willing to acknowledge when I am wrong (at least I anticipate that I will be able to do that, if it ever occurs) I appreciate the input of others no matter how poorly formulated, stated or founded. From the smartest to the dumbest contributors and lurkers, there should be no hesitancy to weigh in or at least get involved. These issues affect many of us and if you haven't taken an interest in it you should.

I like the fact that there is very little flaming in this forum. There is a certain amount of respect amongst intelligent scoundrels.

I like this thread. However, I rank it a distant number 2 behind all those related to finding great pussy in Bs As.

I will respectfully refuse to post in RH's sanitized thread.

SteveC

07-25-09, 23:53

Rather than a long cut and paste job, here's a link (Sydney, please note)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change

For all us non-US citizens, despite all the arguments from the Obama haters, we still can't understand why you spend 16-17% of gdp on health care and yet so many still don't have basic health care. Or is the article full of bullshit?

Hunt99

07-26-09, 12:30

For all us non-US citizens, despite all the arguments from the Obama haters, we still can't understand why you spend 16-17% of gdp on health care and yet so many still don't have basic health care. Or is the article full of bullshit?The Obamaites (and that article) throw around the figure "47 million uninsured."

Here's the skinny.

Of those 47 million, about 20 million are illegal immigrants. None of those will be covered under any national health plan.

Of the remaining 27 million, about 7 million are already eligible for employer health care plans, but don't spend the minimal amount of premium money necessary to get coverage.

Of the remaining 20 million, about another 7 million are eligible for Medicaid, the government health insurance program, but they don't bother enrolling in it.

Of the remaining 13 million, an unknown number (let's guess and say 2 million) have the means to purchase their own health insurance (for example, a 20-something adult with no pre-existing conditions, which means the bulk of them, can purchase a comprehensive plan that will cover serious illnesses for about $100 a month)

A final stat: according to the U.S. Census Bureau, something like 8 million people making more than $75,000 a year don't have health insurance. They could buy it, but they choose not to.

Here's the money shot: we're going to raise taxes by $2,000,000,000,000.00 to cover about 5 million people who have no current access to health insurance. That means we'll spend $400,000.00 a person. And Mr. Obama says we're saving money. Right! It's no surprise the support for this proposal is falling faster than Mr. Obama's job approval numbers.

A final observation - nothing has done so much to rehabilitate the Republican Party as letting the Democrats run things for six months. The 2010 elections promise to be an astonishing rout for the Democrats, Republican recapture of the House of Representatives is now a serious possibility.

Wild Walleye

07-26-09, 14:10

Hunt,

Thanks. There are a couple key issues here. On the face of it (apolitically--just common sense) it does not make sense to overhaul something that is working (albeit not perfectly in all cases) for 84% of the people in order to address the needs of 16%. That just doesn't make sense. There has never been made a solid reason for doing this (trash the 84% for the 16%) yet there is fervor amongst those who are leading the charge. Why?

Politically: in every case where liberals have tried to level the playing field, it is through bringing down the people on the high-end and never about bring up the people on the low end.

Hunt, the one mistake in your analysis is that the illegals won't be covered by national health care. Yes, the will. They already are. They may face rationing of care, as we all will under these plans but they will still have access by walking into any US hospitals and asking for help.

That said, the Democrats solution for this is to grant blanket amnesty to the 20 million or so illegal immigrants who then as citizens will have access to all public programs through the front door rather than the back door. Any the best part of that is that they will all be able to vote. If 20% of them vote, that's 4 million new Democrat votes in places like Florida, California, Arizona, New York, Illinois and Texas. Add to that Rahm Emanuel controlling the census and look out for some great redistricting.

This is part of a concerted effort to permanently install liberal forces in elected positions. Please don't bother replying that I am a conspiracy theorist or right wing whacko. Respond with a decent argument as to why this isn't true and what altruistic motivations are there for these concerted efforts.

The Obamaites (and that article) throw around the figure "47 million uninsured."

Here's the skinny.

Of those 47 million, about 20 million are illegal immigrants. None of those will be covered under any national health plan.

Of the remaining 27 million, about 7 million are already eligible for employer health care plans, but don't spend the minimal amount of premium money necessary to get coverage.

Of the remaining 20 million, about another 7 million are eligible for Medicaid, the government health insurance program, but they don't bother enrolling in it.

Of the remaining 13 million, an unknown number (let's guess and say 2 million) have the means to purchase their own health insurance (for example, a 20-something adult with no pre-existing conditions, which means the bulk of them, can purchase a comprehensive plan that will cover serious illnesses for about $100 a month)

A final stat: according to the U. S. Census Bureau, something like 8 million people making more than $75,000 a year don't have health insurance. They could buy it, but they choose not to.

Here's the money shot: we're going to raise taxes by $2,000,000,000,000.00 to cover about 5 million people who have no current access to health insurance. That means we'll spend $400,000.00 a person. And Mr. Obama says we're saving money. Right! It's no surprise the support for this proposal is falling faster than Mr. Obama's job approval numbers.

A final observation - nothing has done so much to rehabilitate the Republican Party as letting the Democrats run things for six months. The 2010 elections promise to be an astonishing rout for the Democrats, Republican recapture of the House of Representatives is now a serious possibility.

SteveC

07-26-09, 14:37

Thanks for the measured comments. I've spoken to some on the other side of fence on this issue, and I'm not sure where (if?) you're going to find any common ground. I'm British, but a sucker for American politics, you fight dirty. Great stuff!

Miami Bob

07-26-09, 15:13

The CIGNA whistle blower has no reason to lie. Saturday's wall street journal discusses a lobbying campaign by health ins and drug industry for just under us$500,000. To keep out the private option--I wonder why?

If the former director of CIGNA's corp public relations says that Michael Moore's Sicko contains a lot of truth, you can likely bet on it. 20% of the movie is slamming cigna for denying legitimate health benefits to policy holders and telling their stories and comparing health care in canada and western europe.

CIGNA let die and backrupted middleclass policy holders. There should be some remedy or basic fairness in making the policy decision rather than maximizing corp profits.

Hunt look at the ERISA regulation re group health care policies. Health insurance lobbyists wrote these regs's. The supreme court has described them as permitting the wolf to guard the henhouse. There is no effective protection for a policy holders under the law.

Show me a way to regulate the health and drug companies and change the corruption associated with congress and lobbyists, and I'll change my mind about the public option.

SteveC

07-26-09, 15:25

I've heard that the day a new senator or congressman takes office, he / she spends half their time raising money for the next campaign. Not sure how true that is, but the influence of lobbyists has to be corrupting. Medical insurance companies and medical providers spend a huge sum on buying influence. Are the legislators immune from this and vote according to their conscience / true beliefs, or for their paymasters?

Maybe I'm naive but I tend to trust the word of a whistleblower who risks his career over a lobbyist or legislator paid by them.

Miami Bob

07-26-09, 16:04

But You call yourself a moderate and me a left wing extremist. I am a moderate Democrat who sometimes votes Rebublican. I liked bill clinton's accomplishments[ not necessarily his personal weaknesses] and consider nancy pelosi as not reality based.

Your world view economically and politically might be simular to dick chaney's views--hard right rebublican, some libertarian beliefs on social issues and keep the federal government out of everything that is possible. Ie no regulation of anything that can possibly be avoided; and it is the usa's right and duty to protect the american frame of influence at all costs in the world. REmeber that dick differed from bush on abortion and gay rights--those types of regulation should be left to the states and different state may make different choices. That's the libertarian twist.

I accept your right to have your point of view and vigorously communicate and explain your form of analysis. Your postings have made me actually change my mind on one issue--thanks for taking the time to post the way you do.

BUT---within the frame of reference of the entire usa--I would not likely call you a moderate. The blue dogs are moderates--the block of moderate senators trying to broker a compromise on the pending health care legislation.

If you spend your time talking to investment bankers, hedge fund guys corporate ceo's and high level fortune 500 executives--you are definately a very moderate guy. Any I would be labeled a far left wacko. This likely does not include too much contact with the 47million people without health insurance who hunt dismisses without value as human beings. When I knew hunt he was a goverment atty and not in the top 10% economically in the usa. HUNT check your numbers, please.

In florida I would be considered left wing, but not likely an extremists because I believe in quality public education; don't want religion in the public schools;

Believe in regulation of the insurance industry and other forms of regulation to protect average folks from the raw power of great sums of money; and am saddened by the republicans in florida generally competing as to who can pander more to the highly political evangical christians--praise the lord--I know evangical christians who feal used and manipulated by bush and chaney and rowe--but they don't organize and shoot their mouths off.

Bob

Miami Bob

07-26-09, 16:10

The Audacity of Power written by the president when he was first elected to the senate. The entire systew is corrupt. This is why John McCain and Teddy Kennedy jointly worked together to try to change the influence of lobbyists. They failed.

SteveC

07-26-09, 16:17

Another reason why I wouldn't trust any legislator who accepts money from a lobbyist.

"The CCA (Corrections Corporation of America, on the New York stock exchange and owns prisons) and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world's largest prison population -- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line". (A quote from the Huffington Post, so maybe has no credibility whatsover!)

Has everything got to make a profit? Does it make me a communist if I think the government can do some things better than the private sector?

SteveC

07-26-09, 16:20

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. I really do believe that the activities of lobbyists distort the whole political system. They've truly fucked up British politics over the last couple of decades.

Wild Walleye

07-26-09, 17:23

We're going to need to spend some time over many drinks to work through this!

But You call yourself a moderate and me a left wing extremist.I tend to occasionally deploy sarcasm when describing myself. For example: "I am a middle of the road moderate with a 14" schlong"

Your world view economically and politically might be simular to dick chaney's views--hard right rebublican, some libertarian beliefs on social issues and keep the federal government out of everything that is possible. Ie no regulation of anything that can possibly be avoided; and it is the usa's right and duty to protect the american frame of influence at all costs in the world.I am not the boogieman (well...). I am pretty straight forward not falling in to any one person's camp. I am a Conservative. I am for smaller government, less regulation (not the absence of all regulation) less government intrusion in private matters (straight, gay, whatever) That idyllic, smaller government would require fewer federal employees and a lot less money. Let's get to a flat tax at 10% or a VAT tax and eliminate the income tax completely (watch out by the way for a proposed VAT tax and no reduction in income taxes) I believe in the Constitution (as written and amended) and I believe that all men are created equal and that all Americans must be free to pursue happiness.

I do not believe that the government should endorse or condone any forms of discrimination, which is what the Constitution says. I do not believe in government provided entitlements, free lunches, hand outs or what have you (I do however believe that individuals should practice compassion) That said, we are a moral and just society, as such, we have a moral responsibility to take care of those who are not able to take care of themselves. This segment of society is populated by individuals both on both temporary and permanent bases.

I believe in freedom of religion.

BUT---within the frame of reference of the entire usa--I would not likely call you a moderate.You are correct and I would be insulted if called a moderate. Moderates are prone to compromising their principals for personal financial and political advantages. They are spineless, useful idiots.

The blue dogs are moderates--the block of moderate senators trying to broker a compromise on the pending health care legislation.If we are negotiating a business deal and I want to sell you my company for $10 and you want to buy it for $9 and we end up settling on a price of $9.5, that is a compromise.

If you believe in individual liberty, private enterprise, capitalism, smaller more efficient government and agree to Obama's health care plan (because you get money and resources for reelection or more federal spending in your district, whatever) you are not compromising. You are selling out your constituents, the American people and the foundation of our society.

If you believe that you are right (as in correct) on any subject, how can you agree to something that you know is incompatible with what you believe?

I believe that less-regulated private industry produces better results and more choices for the American people, across the board in any industry (excluding national defense)

If you spend your time talking to investment bankers, hedge fund guys corporate ceo's and high level fortune 500 executives--you are definately a very moderate guy. Any I would be labeled a far left wacko. This likely does not include too much contact with the 47million people without health insurance who hunt dismisses without value as human beings. I know lots of these types. From my experience, most are liberals. In fact of all the really rich people I know, only a couple are conservatives. In my experience, many wealthy people tend to practice "it's the thought that counts." So if they are to busy to really do something with a social benefit, they consciously or subconsciously move to the left because they think that is where there is more compassion. Therefore, while they haven't really done anything, at least the intent was there to do something good so their conscience feels better.

In florida I would be considered left wing, but not likely an extremists because I believe in quality public education; don't want religion in the public schools;

Believe in regulation of the insurance industry and other forms of regulation to protect average folks from the raw power of great sums of money; and am saddened by the republicans in florida generally competing as to who can pander more to the highly political evangical christians--praise the lord--I know evangical christians who feal used and manipulated by bush and chaney and rowe--but they don't organize and shoot their mouths off.The government should do what it can demonstrably do better than the private sector. That said, it is so far entrenched in somethings that it will never get out so we have to work with what we have (education, etc)

Intelligent regulation can foster an environment that protects the individual, the corporation and the public at large. Neither regulation nor the lack of regulation can legalize criminal behavior. Criminal activities at the corporate level need to be prosecuted just as harshly as any other type of crime.

I am not an evangelical (TV or otherwise) I believe in God. I believe that everyone else is entitle to believe in the religion of their choice or to live devoid of religion ('freedom of religion'). I do however also believe that without the strong religious faith of our founding fathers, this great nation would not have been established nor would it have prospered for so many years. I do not believe that we as a society should try to erase all traces of our religious foundation ('freedom from religion'), we should celebrate it whilst continuing to practice freedom of religion.

Rock Harders

07-26-09, 19:20

Mongers,

What hardcore right wingers such as Wild Walleye (who granted is a fine and thoughtful writer) refuse to either accept or understand is that affordable healthcare is viewed as and actually is a basic human right in all civilized countries EXCEPT the United States. Even some semi-civilized countries such as Argentina, Brasil, and Colombia have guaranteed affordable healthcare for every one of its citizens. Men like Wild Walleye are of the ilk that Karl Marx proclaimed would destroy the world; greed-blinded capitalists who see no value in any pursuit that does not lead to the advancement of wealth. How about this Wild Wallyeye: imagine you are an independent middle age plumber with asthma and diabetes who cannot obtain health insurance at a reasonable rate and that you have three children and a wife to support. One day you are walking down the street and you fall and break your leg and have to go to the hospital. Upon release from the hospital you are handed a bill for $35,000, which is about 90% of your yearly income (pre-tax) Naturally, you cannot possibly pay this, so you lose your house as a result of the hospital's measures at collecting the debt. Is this fair Wild Walleye? Is this hardworking plumber who cannot obtain reasonably priced health insurance subhuman and undeserving of reasonably priced care?

Healthcare in the United States needs to be reformed; this is the bottom line. A public system should be in put in place that involves free medical school for qualified MD candidates in exchange for 10 years of mandatory service in a public hospital earning a public sector wage with immunity from malpractice litigation. This would function very similar to the US military academies albeit on a much grander scale. After 10 years of mandatory service, MD's could then choose to move on to a more lucrative private practice. I imagine that the Wild Walleyes of the world would claim that they doctors would be incompetent because they were trained by the government. Tell me this Wild Walleye: are the US Air Force and Naval Fighter Pilots incompetent? Or are they the best in the world? The time spent training the MD's would be something similar to what it takes to develop a highly trained fighter pilot. This proposal is not complicated and I am not a genius for suggesting it; the reason it has not happened yet is that the Wild Walleyes and Hunt99's of the world see no value in anything that does not generate profits.

Those who know me know that I am a capitalist and that I make my living doing the most capitalistic of things; buying something for $1 and selling it for $10. I am also extremely anti-bureaucracy and anti- overbearing unnecessary federal government. However, access to affordable health care should be a human right in the USA just as it is in other civilized countries; the profit motive needs to be removed from the health care process as much as possible and this can only be achieved through a comprehensive public healthcare system.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Romanee

07-26-09, 19:52

Rock Harders

07-26-09, 23:06

Military Doctors are exempt from malpractice claims.

I can guarantee you that, in the United States, military doctors, or doctors working in Veterans Administration Hospitals, are not only not exempt from malpractice claims, they are targets of malpractice claims.

Damman

07-26-09, 23:27

Health-care firms and their lobbyists spent money at the rate of $1.4 million a day.http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/health_care_continues_its_inte.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews

Tiny12

07-27-09, 06:01

Rock Harder,

Your plan makes alot of sense. However the Tort Lawyers would hate it. One of the reasons for high medical costs are high malpractice insurance. Also the unneeded and redundant medical tests ordered by doctors to CYA. Talking about the military, Military Doctors are exempt from malpractice claims. Instead of completely tearing apart the US system start small and surgically repair the system. Still if I'am really sick I would rather be treated at the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins than anywhere in the world.It's an interesting idea. As you say though, the Tort Lawyers would hate it, so practically that part stands about a 0% chance of making it through a Congress controlled by Democrat lawyers and being signed into law by a Democrat lawyer president.

About Mayo Clinic, there was an interesting article in the New Yorker recently about Medicare expenditures. The Mayo system has among the lowest per patient Medicare expenditures in the U. S. while offering close to the highest level of care. The article contrasted that to McAllen, Texas, where costs are about 2.5 or 3 times Mayo's cost. The reason -- physicians and hospitals in McAllen game the system. They peform procedures that don't need to be performed, order tests that aren't needed, schedule unneeded office visits, etc. Mayo has a more collegial attitude. Cooperation among physicians is encouraged, and they're not compensated based on how many tests they order or how many patients they visit.

Many argue that if government runs national health care the same way it runs Medicare, we're going to end up with higher costs and lower quality of care. I haven't followed this issue closely enough to know, but believe we should be trying to copy institutions like Mayo that provide high quality, lower cost care. Unfortunately, when you get a bunch of U.S. politicians (i. e. Lawyers) designing national health care, I'm afraid it's going to end up more like Medicare in McAllen than Mayo.

Romanee

07-27-09, 06:18

The Feres Doctrine, a 1950 Supreme Court ruling, forbids active-duty military personnel and their families from suing the federal government for injuries incidental to their service. In other words, unlike every other U. S. Citizen, people in the military cannot sue the federal government for medical malpractice. One argument - that allowing the lawsuits would disrupt military order and discipline.

Miami Bob

07-27-09, 23:11

Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

Could we really repeat the civil war--reds vs blues? We seem to be doing it on AP. Brothers fighting and name calling.

BadMan

07-28-09, 05:20

Thanks for the Republican propaganda chain letter Sid,

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/oklahoma.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_oklahoma_as_defiantly_conservative_as_a.html

Regards,

BM.

Miami Bob

07-28-09, 08:47

Sid expresses his creative sense by posting chain letters again. More good news: hate is alive and well in the USA. Let's set up a public works projects to create jobs: building detention camps where people not liked by any group can build a wall between the USA and Mexico. The world is ending: illegal immigrants.

In a country made up of immigrants: Round up illegals; put them in camps; seperate families: the kids born here are citizens--send their parents back to where they come from. That's the good thing that Christ would want---maybe we should tattoo their foreheads and make them wear gold stars on their clothing. Hate is a patriotic thing! Let's all prey!

Only Oklahoma did not actually do it. The rumors of hate are likely brought to you by the smae good honest people claiming that obama is an illegal immigrant. The only republican to stand up and say stop the lies--john mcCain--a maverick.

Damman

07-28-09, 10:03

State of the Nation: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/26/757458/-The-System-At-Work

The GOP goal is to kill healthcare reform outright; their strategists are saying as much. Not to kill single payer or a public option, but to kill the whole notion of reform. The legislators tasked with coming up with alternative plans declared, this last week, that none were needed; Senator Inhofe muses out loud about how much his party might be helped if they can manage to stop reform outright.

I suppose it is worth pondering the how and the why of such things. Do they earnestly believe that there's absolutely nothing that needs to be done about health care in this country? Are they so transparently in the pockets of the lobbyists that they are willing make a bold stand on "everything is fine", when a mere look out the window says it's not?

It's puzzling that such a stance could even be remotely effective. Everybody in America seems to hate their insurance provider, at least everyone who has ever had to use it because they actually got sick. Everybody knows how bad getting actual healthcare has become in this country; everybody has stories of being screwed roundly by their insurance, or not being able to get insurance in the first place, or knows someone else who has had worse experiences.

And yet even in something with such widespread support, all you have to do to foul up the works is (1) invoke partisan pride, so that all the other conservatives or Republicans will simply oppose whatever-it-is out of reflex, and (2) make up a bunch of scary-sounding bullcrap, much of it provided by the insurance companies themselves, and hork it up on television via friendly hosts and anchors. (And again -- transparently. The very same scary-sounding phrases or made-up statistics make it into twenty or fifty or a hundred different political and pundit mouths in a single day, with not even an attempt to disguise the obvious commonality of the source.

Consider it: this is all it takes to possibly stop something that has, what, 80 or 85% of the public behind it. And it's yet another example of how a single industry, spending not all that much money in the grand scheme of things, can very, very easily counter the collective will of the entire population. And how entrenched the notion is, among the majority of politicians, and pundits, and anchors, and political hangers-on, that that's not only fine but the way things should work.

It seems increasingly easy to understand why there's an culture of mistress-banging and airport-bathroom-handjob-seeking and prostitute-visiting, among our leaders. They truly believe themselves above normal morality or normal law by virtue of their positions. The same mind that can demand moral perfection in others, when it comes to sex, has absolutely no problem preaching those things to others while doing the exact opposite themselves, because they are different from others. There's no contradiction in their minds: they're powerful, so they're a special case. Arrests can be made by the dozen, in New Jersey, and it seems hardly noteworthy. Rush Limbaugh can be caught with illegal prescriptions, after years of railing against drug users, and it does not so much as put a scratch in his Four Hundred Million Dollar career. Rules exist for others; laws exist for others; morality exists for others; personal power or personal advantage is the only goal worth seeking.

After twenty years of the same fight on the same healthcare issues, one thing is transparently obvious, from the pronouncements of the supposed leaders of the opposition: whether or not anyone in America is truly needing of healthcare, from a practical, economic, moral, ethical, or any other standard simply does not enter the debate. I personally do not expect many of these politicians even have an awareness that other people might have medical needs different from their own, or not have insurance like their own insurance, or not be as connected or as well-off; that requires a level of awareness that few of them can even bother to credibly pretend at. The question among our supposed leaders and brilliant minds is only how can this debate be used to extract personal or career advantage for them. If we kill healthcare reform, who will "win" the politics of killing it? Who will have an easier time being elected, or find themselves on television more often?

There's no moral calculus at all, for people like Kristol, or Inhofe, or Gingrich, or other supposed leaders. None is pretended at: none is cowed to. There's no good or bad, there's no long term vs short term -- nothing. And it's among both Republican and Democrat, and it has become increasingly easy to see which are which. Gingrich can have his affairs, and you can't. Our leaders can visit their whores, but you're a dirty rotten sinner if you do. They can have healthcare, because that's just how things work, pal. You can't -- at least, not if there is personal, political advantage to them in preventing it.

It's not even corruption, because "corruption" implies they know they're doing something wrong. It's a complete amorality. This same group of people, this same party of high-minded No, this same party of constant scandal, constant national security blunders, constant deficits, constant manipulations is going to kill healthcare reform because it helps them get cash or influence; they will happily attempt an impeachment of a president for denying an affair while having and denying affairs by the dozens themselves; they're going to ditch the wife and their duties and fly to Argentina to get laid because it makes them happy, and that's all that matters. If it causes problems later, shed some tears and make it go away. (If you're Sarah Palin, pride of Republicanism, hell -- you don't even have to do your actual job. You can pull a Carrie Prejean, bail on all your duties and just wander off to give speeches to promote yourself, and if anyone has a problem with it it's because they don't understand how great you are.

Republicans are still citing, with pride, how they blocked healthcare reform attempts in the Clinton years, an action which directly led to the runaway healthcare costs between then and now. In the Clinton years, 95 cents of every dollar paid in premiums was paid out again for medical care: now it's plummeted to 80 cents, the rest going to administration and profits. But they're proud of this result, and not defensive at all, because whether it be twenty years ago of twenty minutes ago, the whole debate hinges, for them, on what political advantage can be squeezed out of it at any given moment of time, and not on what effects their actions might actually have.

If it means your mother can't get her medicines, or means you can't see a doctor, or your injured child gets wheeled out of the hospital just as soon as they are stabilized, with absolutely no long term care whatsoever, they don't just not care: it doesn't enter their heads.

That is what is so striking about our governance: it is increasingly devoid of even the pretenses of public good. The notion that we should reform healthcare in this nation because it needs reforming is nearly a comical argument; the only relevant or even commonly debated question is who will gain or lose from a strictly political fight to achieve or block the effort. Regardless of popular opinion it can be absolutely assured that whether or not you believe American citizens deserve a more rational healthcare system is entirely dependent on which party you belong to.

Jackson

07-28-09, 12:24

...can build a wall between the USA and Mexico...How in the hell could anyone possibly be against securing our country's borders?

...separate families: the kids born here are citizens...send their parents back to where they come from...Those are "Anchor babies" whose births are deliberately planned to provide their parents an excuse to remain in the USA after entering the country illegally. Don't be fooled! The true blame goes to the parents who deliberately placed their children in this position.

Anyway, there's no need to separate anyone, the anchor babies can go with the illegal parents when they return to their home country.

Rev BS

07-28-09, 20:50

How in the hell could anyone possibly be against securing our country's borders?

Those are "Anchor babies" whose births are deliberately planned to provide their parents an excuse to remain in the USA after entering the country illegally. Don't be fooled! The true blame goes to the parents who deliberately placed their children in this position.

Anyway, there's no need to separate anyone, the anchor babies can go with the illegal parents when they return to their home country.I am all for legal immigration, but why the rant against people who are trying to survive and give their children a better future. Isn't American business and Congress responsible for the current mess. Let's put the blame where it should be.

SteveC

07-29-09, 16:51

When the approval ratings for 'W' were worse than this, did you still support him?

Jackson

07-29-09, 17:00

I am all for legal immigration, but why the rant against people who are trying to survive and give their children a better future. Isn't American business and Congress responsible for the current mess. Let's put the blame where it should be.Hi Black Shirt,

1. They can "survive and give their children a better future" in their own country.

2. "American business and Congress" is not responsible for individuals who make a conscience decision to violate our immigration laws that are already on the books.

BTW, IMHO, a foreign guest worker program is the best solution to the entire problem, but it won't happen because of resistance by special interest groups on both sides of the aisle.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

07-29-09, 17:03

When the approval ratings for 'W' were worse than this, did you still support him?Hi SteveC,

I don't believe that GW had these kind of negative approval ratings regarding his handling of the economy 6 months into his presidency.

Oh, I get it now: You were trying to discount BHO's approval ratings on his handling of the economy at six months into his presidency by comparing them with GW's approval ratings on another subject at another point in GW's presidency.

Yea, I can see where your's would have been a more accurate comparison.

Thanks,

Jackson

Damman

07-29-09, 17:16

Obama and the economy Results.

Q. The president's progress with the battered economy has been both praised and criticized. How well are his efforts measuring up with you?

Not well at all. His plans are hurting more than helping. 71%

537455 votesThe number is bogus, you have got to quit stuffing the ballot box Sid.

Wild Walleye

07-29-09, 17:17

As is consistent with my past posts, I am not opposed to creating incentives and or requirements that create a safety net for those who truly cannot get coverage, but I am wholly against letting the government take over the industry am lead us to a single-payer system (socialized health care) Barney Frank confirmed yesterday that the current "health care reform" is the best way to get to a single-payer system, which he sees as an important objective.

This article is an excellent read and gives you the numbers and facts on what single-payer means to you and me. The facts are stunning. The democrats' health care packages are wrong and will destroy the economy and the quality of our care and will fix absolutely. It's that simple.

Voters and constituents need to tell their reps and senators "Throw it out and start again, this time address the real problems and don't just skip ahead to the 'let's take over health care part.'" If anyone should be the target of anger in this debate, it should be the congress which has deliberately skipped over addressing any of the real issues and is going for the gold of taking over 1/6th of the US economy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html

Ampfofu

07-29-09, 17:54

SteveC

07-29-09, 18:18

I called for Bush's impeachment years ago. But the Obomination is even worsr than Bush!I didn't read that far back, so I withdraw the question. I'm no great supporter of Obama, I just hated the reputation of the USA being dragged through the mud by the Cheney / Bush axis.

I've travelled through maybe 20 countries in the last 10 years, and mixed with most strata of society, including army officers from at least 3 countries (and before Jackson has a go at me, hardly a single lefty student!). And maybe 90% of the people I met had little but contempt for that pair. But I know that's irrelevant, none of our business!

Just my personal observation.

Jackson

07-29-09, 19:03

I called for Bush's impeachment years ago. But the Obomination is even worsr than Bush!Sidney,

I still want to know if there has ever been any US President that you did approve of?

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

07-29-09, 19:55

I listed before -- Reagan and FordOkay, thanks.

Jackson

Hunt99

07-29-09, 21:20

Sidney,

I still want to know if there has ever been any US President that you did approve of?

Thanks,

JacksonHe is also big on Calvin Coolidge, Sidney made a boatload of money in the market during his presidency.

Punter 127

07-30-09, 17:11

I think this is the link Sid's talking about.

http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01

Tiny12

07-30-09, 18:17

I didn't read that far back, so I withdraw the question. I'm no great supporter of Obama, I just hated the reputation of the USA being dragged through the mud by the Cheney / Bush axis. O. K. Mr. Union Jack, How did the Blair / Brown axis differ from Cheney / Bush, when it came to dragging the reputations of their respective countries through the mud? They had similar positions on most significant foreign policy issues.

While I was no supporter of Bush's foreign policy, I think a lot of the criticism came from his style and bad luck. Clinton succeeded in Kosovo so he was a hero. Bush bombed out in Iraq so he wasn't. If I had been dictator of the USA, we wouldn't have been involved in either.

SteveC

07-30-09, 18:40

O. K. Mr. Union Jack, How did the Blair / Brown axis differ from Cheney / Bush, when it came to dragging the reputations of their respective countries through the mud? They had similar positions on most significant foreign policy issues. Absolutely right. Blair was their lapdog all the way, and Brown is no better. The UK's reputation has suffered too, but not as much as the policy deserved. I've got even more contempt for the UK leaders than I have for Cheney / Bush. They didn't have the excuse of bad luck, however true that is. They're just a pair of lapdogs doing the bidding of their US masters rather than having the interests of the people who voted for them at heart.

And I wouldn't have gone in either!

Stan Da Man

07-31-09, 17:14

Duh! Where was this program in January? One must be very suspicious of the reasons it was delayed until July. Could it be that the Obomination intentionally delayed such program in order to ''hatchet'' GM and C. Then stimulate auto sales to make his administration look good! Wake up guys, the O is an evil. Stupid man!Sid, please. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy. But it's got to be a good conspiracy theory. You can do much better than this.

Exon123

07-31-09, 18:54

Duh! Where was this program in January? One must be very suspicious of the reasons it was delayed until July. Could it be that the Obomination intentionally delayed such program in order to ''hatchet'' GM and C. Then stimulate auto sales to make his administration look good! Wake up guys, the O is an evil. Stupid man!No Sidney, the Conspiracy is for Mormon car dealers only.

Exon

Punter 127

07-31-09, 21:14

"Inquiring minds have found some interesting quotes in the Wall Street Journal article 'Cash for Clunkers' Runs Out of Gas.

Michael J. Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc. Said "It was an absolute success. There's a very compelling case the government should put more money into it. It's a great stimulus to the economy."

Actually a very compelling case can be made that the CEO of AutoNation is an economic illiterate. All the program does is shift demand forward. Those clunkers were going to die at some point. Now sales are up this year which will cut into next year's demand, at the expense of everyone not getting free money.

Why anyone should be surprised at the "success" in generating demand for free money is beyond me. There is always demand for free money. Yet, interestingly, everyone seems surprised by the "unexpected success".

If the government wants more "success", it can give everyone $4,500 for a car. Short-term demand will soar. But long-term demand for cars would crash for the next few years, taxpayers would be stuck with the bills, and valuable resources would be wasted on cars rather than productive assets.

Thus, the "absolute success" touted by AutoNation is in reality a tragedy. Handing out free money always is. Indeed, the more free money handed out, the bigger the ultimate tragedy. The housing crash is poof enough."

El Alamo

08-01-09, 09:44

To be able to pass as much left wing legisilation as possible or if that is wrong.

O is just plain stupid! What fool wouldn't know that if sales incentives existed, people would buy cars and trucks. You take your choice, Stan. To me O is incredibly stupid and leads a huge conspiracy!

Bewildered Sid

RE: recent inquiry about career opportunities in the Obama Administration

Estimado Sidney.

I see limited career opportunities for you in the Obama Administration.

Don't call us, we'll call you.

Besos,

Nancy ¨Marsh Rat¨ Pelosi

Punter 127

08-01-09, 10:46

The auto dealer can't cut 18% off the sticker? Gysell shouldn't cut her late night price to 150 pesos? The clothing store can't reduce prices by 30%? The Alamo and Casa Bar shouldn't reduce beer prices? Etc. Is this a new economics? Free money? I'm confused? “Trying to jump-start sales as it resumes production, Chrysler Group LLC is offering rebates that could double the government's "Cash for Clunkers" vouchers given customers.”

I guess they could have cut prices themselves after all. Cutting prices due to lack of sales is one thing, but doing it at taxpayer expense is something else.

This is all just part of the global warming agenda under the guise of saving jobs, but it’s really just a way to force the American people to buy small “green” cars, (which they don’t like) I suspect the next step will be a gas tax increase of about fifty cents a gallon.

Remember America is the only country in the world that’s not allowed to drill its own oil.

Hunt99

08-02-09, 11:22

Actually a very compelling case can be made that the CEO of AutoNation is an economic illiterate. All the program does is shift demand forward. Those clunkers were going to die at some point. Now sales are up this year which will cut into next year's demand, at the expense of everyone not getting free money.

Why anyone should be surprised at the "success" in generating demand for free money is beyond me. There is always demand for free money. Yet, interestingly, everyone seems surprised by the "unexpected success".Your economic analysis is spot-on. However, if you have an old beater that qualifies under the program, take advantage of this, it's a no-brainer. I have one that's worth maybe $1K tops. As soon as I am sure that the program is going to be funded by Congress, I will be buying a new car, even though I had no previous plans to do so. However, as a political protest I will not be buying either a GM or Chrysler product, even though every car I've ever bought has been from one of those two manufacturers. Thinking I will get a Camry or Accord. Toyota and Honda also has the probability of being around three years from now, which Chrysler and GM do not.

Wild Walleye

08-02-09, 14:59

For both the clunker and the new car?

Can I go buy a POS at the used car lot for $1k and trade it for $4.5K?

What are the limitations on the type of car I can buy (mpg, etc)

Your economic analysis is spot-on. However, if you have an old beater that qualifies under the program, take advantage of this, it's a no-brainer. I have one that's worth maybe $1K tops. As soon as I am sure that the program is going to be funded by Congress, I will be buying a new car, even though I had no previous plans to do so. However, as a political protest I will not be buying either a GM or Chrysler product, even though every car I've ever bought has been from one of those two manufacturers. Thinking I will get a Camry or Accord. Toyota and Honda also has the probability of being around three years from now, which Chrysler and GM do not.

El Queso

08-02-09, 16:08

I understand the plan to be only for new cars, as far as where the money can be used. I'd be surprised if they allow it to be used on foreign cars, but maybe they will many foreign cars sold in the US (affordable ones anyway) are built in the US. I also understand that the clunkers have to be destroyed so that they cannot be resold and thus defeat what they are trying to do.

Totally idiotic, whatever the rules are, but I agree Hunt, take advantage of it if you can - the money's going to be used anyway and those who protest by not using the money are just going to lose out.

Rock Harders

08-02-09, 16:15

Punter 127

08-02-09, 17:44

Totally idiotic, whatever the rules are, but I agree Hunt, take advantage of it if you can - the money's going to be used anyway and those who protest by not using the money are just going to lose out.It's not just those that protest, where does this program leave the poor financially challenged and fixed income folks?

I’m talking about the people who can’t afford to buy a new car?

-They’re unable to take advantage of the rebate.

-The pool of cars they can afford buy are being destroyed.

- What’s the effect of this program on the used car salesman?

The left seems to roll out the cry for “compassion” on an as “they” need to basis, where is the compassion for the poor financially challenged and fixed income folks?

I guess they’ll just have to walk to get their free health care.

If this program was really about stimulating the economy and saving jobs we wouldn’t see the MPG and MUST DESTROY requirements.

This program is about the “Green agenda”, and it says screw the poor and the old!

I promise you the rebates will be taken back in tax increases, so Hunt is correct, you may as well get a piece of the pie, you’re going to pay for it anyway!

Wild Walleye

08-02-09, 18:50

Duh! Who voted for the Obomination?This program is a sad joke (not that I won't take advantage of it if possible) It is cleary driven by the Green movement and directly punishes the poor (doesn't just exclude them)

The destruction of the clunkers eliminates the largest source of spare parts for those on a tight budget. This drives up the cost of owning an older car. Secondarily, if they can get credit, it encourages the kind of behavior that got us into this mess in the first place (I. E. Trade in the clunker, get a new car loan for more than you can afford, etc, etc)

Please don't mistake anything Obama does as 'for the poor.' He doesn't care about the poor. He is a millionaire. If he cared about the poor, he'd help out his half brother and his aunt (both living in poverty) Don't judge a man by his words alone, his actions speak volumes.

Hunt99

08-02-09, 18:52

Mongers-

The requirements for the "clunkers for cash" program are as follows:

-The car being traded in must be a 1984 or newer model and must have had an EPA combined fuel economy rating of 18 MPG or less.

-The new car being bought will get an automatic, on the spot discount of $3500 USD. If the new car being bought has a combined 22 MPG EPA rating, the discount will be $4500.

-The dealer must "junk" the cars that are being traded in, as such they may not resell them.

Suerte,

Rock HardersOne more relevant point - you have to have owned and had the car registered for the last 12 months. So no buying an old one for $500 and then turning around trading it in. BUT - perhaps you can get somebody who owns an old car to do the purchase for you in cash. As with any government give-away program, there are surely ways to game the system, not all of which are completely fraudulent.

Jackson

08-02-09, 23:59

Please don't mistake anything Obama does as 'for the poor.' He doesn't care about the poor. He is a millionaire. If he cared about the poor, he'd help out his half brother and his aunt (both living in poverty) Don't judge a man by his words alone, his actions speak volumes.I suspect that there are probably lots of poor people who would genuinely appreciate owning some of these apparently drivable cars, but unfortunately the program requires that the trade-ins be wrecked within 72 hours.

In other words, we're destroying a billion dollars worth of cars that could instead be given to the less financially fortunate among us. In fact, many local Goodwill franchises operate just such a program.

Of course, some people have speculated that the entire program was not actually an economic stimulus program, but instead was an environmental program in which the goal was to get the older, polluting, low fuel economy cars off the road before the true end of their mechanical lifespan.

Thanks,

Jackson

Punter 127

08-03-09, 11:20

“Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It's a promise he's already broken and will likely have to break again. Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already increased tobacco taxes — which disproportionately hit the poor — to pay for extending health coverage to 4 million children in working low-income families.”

But now;

Surprise, Surprise: Geithner Won’t Rule Out Tax Increase for Middle Class!

“To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a “This Week” exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, “We ’re going to have to do what ’s necessary.”

Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn’t do it.

“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically, ” Geithner told me. “And that ’s going to require some very hard choices.”"

Read my lips???

Wild Walleye

08-03-09, 14:24

Yes, he inherited a bad economy. Then he quadrupled the debt, printed trillions of dollars, destroyed what was left of the banks, took over two of the big-3 and gave them to the autoworkers' union and is trying to destroy health care.

Raise taxes? He already has. Every aspect of our lives is becoming more expensive under his rule. He has cheapened our dollars, raised the minimum wage (yes this is a tax) won't keep the capital gains tax cuts in place, increased govt fees, made used cars too expensive for the budget conscious (any old POS is now worth $4,500 so good luck finding a car for less than $4,500)

Who do you think these costs hit hardest? Surprise! These costs hurt the less economically advantaged people the most. Included amongst them, are those who don't pay income taxes. Just wait until they raise everyone's taxes.

The cash for clunkers program is lip service to the greens and a payoff to the auto workers union (I. E. Buy up the older used car inventory at 3X its actual value in order to create sales for GM and Chrysler) I am surprised that they didn't specifically exclude Ford from participating in the program.

"Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It's a promise he's already broken and will likely have to break again. Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already increased tobacco taxes — which disproportionately hit the poor — to pay for extending health coverage to 4 million children in working low-income families."

But now;

Surprise, Surprise: Geithner Won’t Rule Out Tax Increase for Middle Class!

“To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a “This Week” exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, “We ’re going to have to do what ’s necessary.”

Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn’t do it.

“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically, ” Geithner told me. “And that ’s going to require some very hard choices.”"

Read my lips???