American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 4

Stan Da Man

09-21-09, 22:41

Last week, Obama provided the key points of the new system he will push to get Congress turn into legislation and send to him.

I trust this will clear up lots of confusion that has spread with the President's opponents distortions and the media focussed more on the fight than the content.

Basics.

1. If you like your insurance, you can keep it.

[AND, IF YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR INSURANCE, YOU STILL HAVE TO KEEP IT. THIS WILL BE THE OBJECTION HEARD FROM THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE COVERAGE BUT DON'T LIKE IT.]

2. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

[ONLY IF THE PUBLIC OPTION PASSES, WHICH IS UNLIKELY]

3. No dropped coverage when you get sick.

[RARELY HAPPENS EVEN TODAY, THOUGH MIAMI BOB WOULD DISAGREE. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE 'DENIED' COVERAGE, CITED BY OBAMA IN HIS SPEECH, ARE GOOD REMINDERS OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND PICK THE WRONG EXAMPLES OF THESE SUPPOSEDLY COMMON PRACTICES. BUT, OF COURSE, THE LEFT WING MEDIA ONLY LIGHTLY REPORTED ON THIS.]

4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.

[YEP. EVERYONE LIKES "FREE," BUT "THERE'S A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE." HERE, THOSE TWO CONCEPTS ARE BEING MARRIED TOGETHER. THIS WILL BE QUITE EXPENSIVE.]

5. Caps out-of-pocket expenses.

[SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.]

6. Required coverage for preventative care.

[MOST MAJOR STUDIES ON PREVENTIVE CARE SHOW THAT THEY AREN'T WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T REALLY SAVE MONEY. ADMITTEDLY, THERE AREN'T MANY STUDIES ON THIS. THOSE THAT ARE BASED ON REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE PUT THE LIE TO THE IDEA THAT THIS RESULTS IN NET SAVINGS.]

If you don't have insurance:

1. A new insurance marketplace, the Exchange.

[SIMPLY WON'T WORK THE WAY IT'S PITCHED.]

2. New tax credits for individuals and small business.

[I'm NOT HOLDING MY BREATH ON THIS ONE.]

3. Low-cost coverage for all individuals and small businesses.

[NOT REALLY. THE TAX ON THE "MIDDLE CLASS" TO PAY FOR THIS IS $3,800 OR SO FOR A FAMILY. AS I've ALWAYS SAID, I'm NOT IN FAVOR OF NEW TAXES FOR ANYONE. THE IDEA THAT THIS ISN'T A TAX IS LAUGHABLE. CITIZEN: "BUT I DON'T WANT INSURANCE." GOVERNMENT: "YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT." CITIZEN: "BUT I WON'T GO TO THE DOCTOR." GOVERNMENT: "THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT. FORK OVER THE $3,800."]

4. A public health insurance option.

[GET YOUR INSURANCE FROM UNCLE SAM. THE SAME FOLKS WHO BROUGHT YOU MEDICAID, AMTRAK, FANNIE MAE AND THE POST OFFICE. HAVING MASTERED THOSE AREAS, HE'S NOW MOVING INTO HEALTH CARE. PERSONALLY, I GET THIS IMAGE OF THE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN FROM THE MEDICINE SHOW IN HUCK FINN EVERY TIME I HEAR SOMEONE CLAIM THAT THE PUBLIC OPTION IS GOING TO KEEP THE PRIVATE SECTOR "HONEST." RIGHT. GEE, WHAT ELSE CAN THE GOVERNMENT CURE?]

For All Americans:

1. Won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront.

[HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BROOKLYN BRIDGE, MEET YOUR NEW OWNER. SORRY, I KNOW THAT'S MEAN-SPIRITED. RICARDO, IF YOU'VE REALLY WORKED IN GOVERNMENT ALL THIS TIME, YOU KNOW THIS ONE IS SILLY. IF YOU BELIEVE IT, YOU'RE A HOPELESS IDEALOGUE. MORE LIKELY, EVEN YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS ONE, BUT YOU BELIEVE IT'S BETTER TO INCREASE THE DEFICIT TO SOME DEGREE THAN STICK WITH THE STATUS QUO. IF IT'S THE LATTER, IT WOULD BE WHERE YOU AND I PART COMPANY. I'LL TAKE STATUS QUO OVER THIS PLAN. THE SOPS THAT ARE BEING OFFERED TO DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUENTS ALREADY (E. G. UNIONS) WILL DRASTICALLY INCREASE THE DEFICIT.]

2. Independent medical experts to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.

[RIGHT. JUST AS THEY DO WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. HOPEFULLY, THEY'VE BEEN HOLDING BACK ON THE "REAL" EXPERTS FOR JUST THIS MOMENT SO THEY COULD LURE ALL OF THE WASTERS, FRAUDSTERS AND ABUSERS INTO A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.]

3. Required coverage for preventative care.

[DOESN'T DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.]

4. Eliminates the prescription drug "Donut Hole"

[LOTS OF AMERICANS LIKE DONUT HOLES. I WOULDN'T BE SO QUICK TO ELIMINATE THESE, IF I WAS OBAMA.]

5. Immediate medical malpractice reform projects.

[WILL NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY. PLAINTIFFS LAWYERS ARE TOO LARGE A SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. OBAMA IS TOO SMART TO CUT HIS NOSE OFF TO SPITE HIS FACE, AND THIS GROUP WILL NOT WILLINGLY PARTICIPATE IN TORT REFORM JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE "RIGHT THING TO DO." THIS IS EVEN MORE IMPLAUSIBLE THAN #1 RE DEFICIT SPENDING. DON'T GET ME WRONG. THEY'LL PROBABLY PAY LIP SERVICE TO TORT REFORM. BUT IT WILL BE ONLY THAT.] My personal opinion: If they don't get this passed before Thanksgiving, they won't get it passed at all. Mid-term elections are less than a year away at that point and campaigning will begin in earnest for 1/3 of the senate. Legislators are going to get another earful on this when they go back to their constituents. Enough senators will be scared straight that it won't pass. The more folks find out about this plan, the less they'll want it.

This will be especially true with respect to the mandatory insurance tax. I understand why they're doing it. But, there will be a significant minority of folks who will object to the idea that they are forced to purchase insurance. And well they should object. In reality, this is government's effort to force those who don't need insurance (the young and healthy) to subsidize those who do (the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions) It is unquestionably a tax. More importantly, there are serious questions as to whether this portion will be Constitutional. If, as I suspect, it is unConstitutional, then who's going to subsidize the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions? I'll give you two guesses.

We'll see. At least it's kept Congress distracted long enough such that they haven't been able to do too much more damage.

Should be interesting -- at least as interesting as watching sausages get made.

Ricardo

09-21-09, 23:08

My personal opinion: If they don't get this passed before Thanksgiving, they won't get it passed at all.

Should be interesting -- at least as interesting as watching sausages get made.Based on a few years working on the Hill and working in poliitics for almost 20 years, my (semi) professional opinion is Obama will be signing health care reform into law before mid-January 2010.

It will deny the insurance companies the freedom to fuck their customers that they have enjoyed (my choice of a verb is deliberate) for too long.

It will include both a mandate requiring Americans to insure themselves and a triggered public option.

It will cover most, but not 100% of Americans.

A small handful of Republicans in the both houses will support it.

The right wing noise machine will say its the end of the world as we know it and within 48 hours will find some other evil thing to pin on Obama the antichrist.

You heard it hear first!

Cowpie

09-22-09, 01:42

My 2 cents:

If that happens, I predict O BAMA will also have to pay a price; maybe someone will make a move to "integrate" Mount Rushmore. A tribute to his ambition and socialist causes. Personally I think it would be defacing a nation monument.

Oh well, I guess when the talking stops, and logic fails, and a dictator refuses to listen, it's Americans right and privilege too defend democracy. Something Argentineans know little to nothing about.

El Queso

09-22-09, 02:06

I agree pretty much with all stated problems in the health system, even to the 45K dying realted to a lack of insurance being another symptom of the problem.

When I said this in my first post in this thread:

"It's not quite as big a problem as Obama and the Democrats make it out to be for the BIG MAJORITY of people in this country."

I should have added "to be solved immediately, in the next few months." Reading Ricardo's response to that particular quote I realized that it didn't come out as clearly as I intended it. I tend to write too fast (I'm a busy guy) and don't choose my words as carefully as I should in order to completely express myself.

I understand that there had to be some fast movement to prop up a failing financial system, as far as the failing global economy, et al. I don't think that Obama and the Democrats spent the money wisely (at least not a generous portion of it) but I also don't think it was (or will be) a complete failure.

The truth is, I write software and have only a more-than-general understanding of the really high-level complex issues involved. I haven't written too much in oposition to the expenditure that has taken place for that reason. A few comments to note my uncertain dissatisfaction, that's about it.

I have run a business for the last eight years or so, and before that I was involved at middle-level management in a large corporation. I've seen how healthcare impacted people in general as an employee who saw his contribution go up significantly over time, to a manager who had to tell his people about the latest hike or loss of benefits and worry that some of his best people were going to flee to other places, and as a self-employed person who has had to survive without insurance and fret that he wouldn't be able to hire people because he couldn't offer insurance.

Under that last category, I began to understand that insurance is not the necessity that it seems almost everyone thinks it is.

I have raised the point "why should we need health insurance" in two threads now, at least once in each one. I was hoping I might get some specific comments in this thread, me being the first response to Ricardo and all, which should have brought some prominence to the fact it was asked. Maybe the point has been mixed in among my other comments too much.

Can someone please answer me:

If we were going to do REAL REFORM, and not just pile more overhead and government onto the current issue in an attempt to fix things, why didn't we take a little time, as grown-ups who realize that the current system and possibly the entire current thought process on how to provide better medical care to as many people as want it, just sit down and think about it for a little bit instead of rushing into this?

Of course, the real answer is politics. Obama knew that he couldn't sit around and wait for a real discussion, because he had a particular brand of reform in mind, one that is VERY hard to swallow for a LARGE number of people in our country. He knew that he had to ram his plan through his first year in office while he still had impetus and certainly before the midterm elections when he is likely to lose the large and important majority that he has in Congress.

Ok, so I can understand the political necessity if he wants to do what he has in mind. But I don't have to like it.

To me, this situation and what Obama is doing with healthcare points to why I distrust government. I know it's imperfect, as demonstrated, but to me that is why government should do less, at least actively. Pass laws where necessary, leave out loopholes for your buddies, and then enforce with righteousness that which you have put into place. Human nature seems to not allow that to happen, and human nature is to put more bandages on the festering wound until it has to be amputated.

So again, why insurance for every little ache and pain, every visit to the doctor, every test that should be run?

I was not a wealthy person by any stretch of the imagination, when I was living in the States and worked, and managed people, etc, etc. I was more fortunate than many, but I was way less fortunate than a lot of people I knew, much less than existed in the US as a whole. But I managed for a good number of years to not have to buy anything but catastrophic-level insurance.

Why can't we fix things for real so that medical costs aren't outrageous, so that people could afford to visit the doctor's office and have checkups and keep healthy out of their own pockets?

Something so that about 3/4 of the country could afford normal health care without insurance and the 1/4 that couldn't we would figure out how to pay for them?

Why can't we take a step back and figure out the right way to do this instead of being caught up in this paradigm that you need medical insurance to live day by day?

Have catastrophic insurance, sure. I understand that shit will happen that is over the edge as far as costs go, even in a situation where health care in general is not as expensive. In fact, it is the big stuff that wreaks some of the worst havoc.

If you start paying for catastrophic insurance when you're young, you'll have built up enough equity (under a fair system) to deal with the age-related problems that are going to cost more. Insurance is about spreading risk, and the cost of that which happens to young people also gets spread out among the general population.

I've written so much now that I can't go on to provide examples or more detail.

But why can't we talk about real reform instead of piling more crap on the dung heap?

It's already too late. Again.

Cowpie

09-22-09, 02:31

My top ten list for health care reform:

I'm aware this isn't perfect but we're not dealing with some 3rd world system, we have the best system, it only needs some common sense.

1. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies are going to have to take it in the shorts, along with the next 4 items below.

2. No dropped coverage when you get sick.

3. No waiting period for coverage.

4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.

5. Force insurance companies to provide comparable coverage in all states. Lets' face it they have a monopoly. Huge savings here.

6. Tort reform, fricking lawyers do nothing but add to the cost, big savings here.

7. Send all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico or force them to p2p for health care, currently they only take from the health care system, plus they send their cash back home. Savings everywhere here.

It's like mexicans can walk into any emergency room and service (fix a broken arm, or a BBBJ etc. Is free, americans have to pay, that aint right.

8. Modernize the record keeping process and eliminate cost. Obama was right on this one. Moderate savings.

9. Leave Medicare / Medicaid alone for now. This is already a (government mess) The biggest saving of all, maybe in a couple years or so.

Jackson

09-22-09, 02:39

My personal opinion: If they don't get this passed before Thanksgiving, they won't get it passed at all.Stan,

The Dems are not going to let their boy go down in flames, and thus I can state with great certainty that Congress will pass a bill of some type that they will trumpet as "Health Reform", including a wildly promoted "Presidential Signing Ceremony" and endless claims of Democratic victory.

The only issue is whether or not they pass a bill that ACTUALLY reforms the health insurance business, including the health justice business, which the country has needed for many years.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

09-22-09, 02:44

1. Won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront.Okay, is there anyone on this forum that actually believe this, or am I the only one who is ROTFLMAO?

No, seriously. I'd like to hear the supporting arguments from anyone who can make a case that any of the Dems proposed health care bills "won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront".

Alternatively, is there anyone that would like to make a bet on this?

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

09-22-09, 03:00

Dctex99
My top ten list for health care reform:

I'm aware this isn't perfect but we're not dealing with some 3rd world system, we have the best system, it only needs some common sense.

1. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies are going to have to take it in the shorts, along with the next 4 items below.

2. No dropped coverage when you get sick.

3. No waiting period for coverage.

4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.

5. Force insurance companies to provide comparable coverage in all states. Lets' face it they have a monopoly. Huge savings here.

6. Tort reform, fricking lawyers do nothing but add to the cost, big savings here.

7. Send all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico or force them to p2p for health care, currently they only take from the health care system, plus they send their cash back home. Savings everywhere here.

It's like mexicans can walk into any emergency room and service (fix a broken arm, or a BBBJ etc. Is free, americans have to pay, that aint right.

8. Modernize the record keeping process and eliminate cost. Obama was right on this one. Moderate savings.

9. Leave Medicare / Medicaid alone for now. This is already a (government mess) The biggest saving of all, maybe in a couple years or so.Congratulations Cowpie, and well done!

I was contemplating posting my own list of what a good health insurance reform bill should include, but you've beat me to it.

Among other other things that you've enumerated, your plan...

- Does not raise anyone's taxes.
- Does not increase the Federal Budget or the National Debt.
- Does not force anyone to buy health insurance.
- Does not fine anyone for NOT buying health insurance.
- Does not effect anyone's current health insurance provider.
- Does not increase the cost of anyone's current health insurance.*

*Note: Obviously, eliminating pre-existing conditions and the cap on lifetime payouts will raise the average cost of everyone's health policies as these increased costs are spread across all policy holders, but I predict that this will be offset by the reduced costs from health insurance reform and increased competition.

One point though. There's no need to "force" insurers to do business across state lines. All we need to do is replace the state-level licensing and other regulations with uniform federal licensing and regulations. This would allow insurers to sell their policies in any and every state. You know, just like you can buy your auto insurance from any company in the country.

The problem for the Libs is that your proposal does not facilitate their true goal of wealth redistribution, nor does it allow them to give anything to their low-income constituencies, or to illegal aliens for which they have aspirations of turning into loyal Democrat voters.

In other words, its only good for the country as a whole.

Thanks,

Jackson

Easy Go

09-22-09, 04:47

If there are no waiting periods and no limits on pre-existing conditions, won't the smart move be to not purchase health insurance until you get sick and drop it as soon as you get well?

If only sick people actually buy health insurance, isn't that going to badly skew the risk pool and underwriting results for companies providing the coverage? Won't they need to substantially increase premiums to survive? Who is going to be able to afford those dramatically premiums?

Insurance costs are just a symptom of the real problem of high medical costs in the USA and, if we want a market-based solution, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to have a system where the the bulk of consumers have a direct stake in the price of medical care and can afford to buy it when they need it.

My insurance premium goes up 7-10% each year, my co-pays rise ($10/ office visit to $20/ visit in the past 5 years) and my choices become more limited (30% copay to go out-of-network vs 20% just a few years ago) 20 more years of that and private health insurance will be too expensive and too restricted to be a viable alternative to a single-payer system that has can pool risk across 300 million people, can directly control costs by setting prices, and can set limits on treatments.

Easy Go

09-22-09, 05:15

Here's kind of a fun article from 2005 about the value of preventing states from limiting interstate competition.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007011

The fun part is the way the article uses financial deregulation in refuting the concern that there would be a deregulatory race to the bottom.

"The best analogy for what to expect here is probably our experience with interstate banking, which has indeed resulted in operators moving to friendly climes like Delaware and South Dakota but which has also proven nothing but a boon to consumers. A national market has allowed the growth of big, financially stable institutions that have earned consumer trust."

Ain't that a crackup.

They do make good points about special interests increasing costs by loading up coverages and the dangers of adverse selection posed by guaranteeing access. Although for some reason, they seem to assume that the same special interests will give up and crumble when faced with a multi-state environment.

Ricardo

09-22-09, 07:36

Ricardo

09-22-09, 08:22

I began to understand that insurance is not the necessity that it seems almost everyone thinks it is.

IT IS LIKE CAR INSURANCE, YOU DON'T NEED IT UNTIL YOU ARE IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. THEN WITHOUT IT YOU CAN BE TRULY FUCKED!

If we were going to do REAL REFORM, and not just pile more overhead and government onto the current issue in an attempt to fix things, why didn't we take a little time, as grown-ups who realize that the current system and IT'S BUSINESS. Possibly the entire current thought process on how to provide better medical care to as many people as want it, just sit down and think about it for a little bit instead of rushing into this?

UNFORTUNATELY, STARTING FROM SCRATCH IS NOT A REALISTIC OPTION. THAT'S LIKE ASKING MICROSOFT TO DO WINDOWS OVER STARTING FROM SCRATCH. WHEN A SYSTEM CONTROLS 16% OF THE ECONOMY, OR FOR MICROSOFT 80% OF THE MARKET, YOU CAN'T DO A REWITE, YOU CAN HARDLY DO A REBOOT. SAD BUT TRUE.

Of course, the real answer is politics.

IT'S NOT POLITICS - THE POLITICALLY SMART THING WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR OBAMA TO TAKE THE ISSUE OFF THE AGENDA AND SAY THE ECONOMIC CRISIS HAD TO TAKE PRECEDENCE. HE DIDN'T BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS THEY ARE INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED.

ITS BUSINESS - THE INSURANCE / MEDICAL BUSINESS INTERESTS HAVE OBSTRUCTED ANY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM, OTHER THAN GETTING GOVERNMENT TO GIVE THEM MORE CUSTOMERS AND TO PICK UP THE TAB, SINCE MEDICARE WAS INTRODUCED IN 1964. THEY MADE QUARTERLY PROFITS THE HOLY GRAIL REGARDLESS OF ANY OBLIGATION TO THEIR CUSTOMER BASE AND LIKE THE WALL STREET MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, HAVE PUT THE WHOLE SYSTEM AT RISK. INSURANCE ISN'T INSURANCE WHEN IT CAN BE CANCELLED ON A CORPORATE WHIM DESPITE YEARS OF PAYING PREMIUMS ON TIME.

Obama knew that he couldn't sit around and wait.

THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN WAITING FOR 79 YEARS SINCE TEDDY ROOSEVELT FIRST CALLED FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE. THERE HAVE BEEN 18 PRESIDENTS OVER THAT TIME, AT LEAST EIGHT OF WHOM ATTEMPTED TO HAVE THE US NOT BE THE ONLY INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY THAT DOESN'T HAVE IT.

OBAMA TOOK ON THE ISSUE, BECAUSE EVERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ECONOMIC EXPERT - RIGHT OR LEFT - SAYS WHAT THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE SAYS - CHANGE HEALTH CARE OR IT WILL UNDERMINE ANY HOPE OF LONG TERM ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

He knew that he had to ram his plan through his first year in office. Certainly before the midterm elections when he is likely to lose the large and important majority that he has in Congress.

YOU MAKE MY POLITICAL POINT - TAKING ON THE ISSUE WAS HIGH RISK, AND MOST POLITICIANS AVOID HIGH RISKS. OBAMA SAW WHAT HEALTH CARE DID TO CLINTON, SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POLITIC TO LEAVE IT ALONE. BUT HE TAKES HIS JOB SERIOUSLY. HE CHOSE TO BE ECONOMICALLY RESPONSIBLE AND POLITICALLY FOOLHARDY.

To me, this situation and what Obama is doing with healthcare points to why I distrust government.

GIVEN WHAT WE ALL HAVE LEARNED ABOUT HOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OPERATE - AND WHAT WALL STREET DID OVER THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS - YOU DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT? HOW ABOUT WE CAN'T TRUST INSTITUTIONS RUN BY PEOPLE WHO LET GREED OR A LUST FOR POWER RULE THEIR BEHAVIORS!

But I managed for a good number of years to not have to buy anything but catastrophic-level insurance.

WITH THE COST OF TREATMENT IN THE US, GETTING A TOOTH PULLED AND REPLACED CAN RUN UP BILLS THAT ARE CATASTROPHIC FOR MOST MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES!

But why can't we talk about real reform instead of piling more crap on the dung heap?

I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT BUT THINK THE WORLD DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY ANYMORE! YOU ARE A SMART GUY - EVEN MORE IDEALISTIC THAN ME (WHICH WILL SCARE SOME OF OUR FELLOW BLOGGERS) I WAS DUMB ENOUGH TO WORK IN POLITICS TO END POVERTY, RACISM AND WAR. THOSE MIGHT BE EASIER TASKS THAN HEALTH CARE!

Ricardo

09-22-09, 08:31

Ricardo

09-22-09, 08:55

Dctex99 Congratulations Cowpie, and well done!

I MUST ASSUME LIKE COWPIE YOU ENDORSE 9 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE OBAMA PLAN, THEN YOU GO OFF THE SKIDS, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE.

- Does not raise anyone's taxes. -

- THAT'S DOABLE AND PROPOSED.

- Does not increase the Federal Budget or the National Debt.

- DOABLE AND PROPOSED.

- Does not force anyone to buy health insurance.

- MANDATORY VIRGINITY DISAPPEARED A WHILE BACK. WE MANDATE CONTRIBUTING TO SSI AND MEDICARE AND BUYING CAR INSURANCE. AS WELL AS ME PAYING FOR A FEW WARS IN MY LIFE I OPPOSED. EVERYONE PICKS UP THE BILL FOR THE VOLUNTARY UNINSURED WHEN THEY GET SICK. MANDATORY IS NECESSARY. AND WE KNOW LIBERTARIANS DON-T LIKE IT.

- Does not fine anyone for NOT buying health insurance.

FINES ARE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OF A MANDATORY FEATURE.

- Does not effect anyone's current health insurance provider.

DOABLE AND PROPOSED. EMPLOYERS RETAIN THE "FREEDOM" OF TO CHANGE PROVIDERS IF COVERAGE GETS TOO EXPENSIVE. THEN THE EMPLOYER CHANGES HIS EMPLOYEES PROVIDER, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

- Does not increase the cost of anyone's current health insurance.*

I ASSUME YOU MEAN BEYOND THE HUGE INCREASES THAT THE INSURANCE PROVIDERS INTEND TO IMPOSE THAT MAY DOUBLE COSTS IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

*Note:. All we need to do is replace the state-level licensing and other regulations with uniform federal licensing and regulations.

I ASSUME THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS WOULD PRECLUDE THE PROVIDERS FROM THEIR CURRENT PRACTICES THAT COWPIE'S (AND OBAM'AS) PLAN WOULD ELIMINATE!

The problem for the Libs is that your proposal does not facilitate their true goal of wealth redistribution, nor does it allow them to give anything to their low-income constituencies, or to illegal aliens for which they have aspirations of turning into loyal Democrat voters.

RANT ON KEMOSABE!

JacksonINTERESTING TAKE YOU HAVE JACKSON, ALL THE INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS ASIDE!

Cowpie

09-22-09, 15:12

My intent was to try and make sense. OBAMA is trying to force National health care on eventually everyone. Can you imagine another payroll deduction called comrade health care in addition FICA, Medicare, Medicaid, and social security. That's exactly what he's up to.

As for Jackson's comments below:

I totally agree with him it reflects a common sense conservative view point. Who in the hell wants to be forced to pay more and get less, especially for a bunch of assholes who only want to take from America and not pay their share?

- Does not raise anyone's taxes.

- Does not increase the Federal Budget or the National Debt.

- Does not force anyone to buy health insurance.

- Does not fine anyone for NOT buying health insurance.

- Does not effect anyone's current health insurance provider.

- Does not increase the cost of anyone's current health insurance

El Queso

09-22-09, 16:58

YOU ARE A SMART GUY - EVEN MORE IDEALISTIC THAN ME (WHICH WILL SCARE SOME OF OUR FELLOW BLOGGERS) I WAS DUMB ENOUGH TO WORK IN POLITICS TO END POVERTY, RACISM AND WAR. THOSE MIGHT BE EASIER TASKS THAN HEALTH CARE!Thanks for the compliment:)

But really, I don't necessarily see myself as idealistic. To me, much of this is common sense, but of course, "common sense" is only common to those who are infected with the same memes, or who don't have other, contradictory memes to interfere.

My grandmother, who died in February of this year at the ripe age of 92, used to tell me a story about when she first had healthcare, through the bank she worked at in Tulsa, Ok. This was, if I recall the time period correctly, the late '50s.

She used to go to the doctor as often as required and paid her own way, and that of her two boys. She was poor - her husband was not in the picture any more, in any sense. She worked two jobs. Her sons (obviously my father and my uncle) worked as well to help provide for the family, as young as 14. They lived modestly, yet with pride in themselves and the fact that they were productive members of their society.

Her doctor used work with patients in trade, in payments, whatever to make sure that he could provide the best care to them that he could provide because he actually cared about being a doctor more than being rich - at the time.

Shortly after getting insurance, things changed. The doctor's prices went up by almost 100%. My grandmother was worried about this, but the doctor told her not to worry because with the new insurance that she had, he was able to accept a little less from her than normal, and yet he could turn around and charge the insurance company more because they would accept it.

Well, obviously, that seems to me to be the beginning of the end.

I don't believe that we necessarily have to start over to do true reform. I don't believe there is a way to return to the past, but also, using the excuse that it's too difficult to "do the right thing" (whatever that may end up being) is a cop out.

My comments about Obama's political manueverings were not a criticism that he had to do that to get something done. It was a statement of fact that if he wanted to get something done, he would have to play that particular game to get it passed, particularly at this moment in time, because there are too many people opposed to what he wants to do.

The problem I have is that he is not setting things right, I believe. I think he is compounding the mistakes that already exist, much like (it can be argued) Roosevelt did by many of his New Deal programs in an attempt to fix previous problems.

I guess from this standpoint, perhaps, I AM idealistic. To think that we can actually set things right in this day and age, with so many people with so many different ideas, may be impossible.

Before I came to live in Argentina, I had an idea that what was going on in the States was dangerous. Since I have come to live here, I have come to the definite conclusion that what is being done is dead wrong.

Personal responsibility is lost when you try to do too much for people who do not do for themselves. In the States, it is still true (though I don't know for how much longer) that ANYONE who applies themselves can get ahead. But there are too many organizations and "politically correct thinking" that allow whoever wants to to cry, ***** and moan about their "plight."

The problem is, every social program that is enacted sucks the money from the people who have worked hard for it and who would invest it back into the economy and gives it to people who don't produce, for one reason or another. The government will NEVER be able to do things truly efficiently, it's the nature of the beast.

"Redistribution of Wealth" by any artificial means is destructive.

I watch here in Argentina as the "fearless leaders" fly free in the face of "terrible world capitalism" and buddy up with poeople like Hugo Chavez, telling the people that countries like the US are what's wrong with the world, and that their poverty is all our fault.

My sister-in-law (who is 13 and whom I have invited to come from Paraguay to get a better education) is forced to read that famous book that Chavez gave to Obama (who accepted it like an idiot - sorry, but I think that was stupid and amateurish) - "Las Venas Abiertas de Latina America" (The Open Veins of Latin America) in school here.

In the opening chapter of the book, it states very clearly its intent to prove that the US primarily, and some European powers as well, conspire to do everything they can to keep Latin America in its place and ensure that all of their resources are sucked out to leave them penniless and powerless. Of course, she is such an intelligent young ldy, that she comes to me every so often, pointing out obvious (even to a 13 year old!) Serious nconsistencies in what the author is saying.

As I told my sister-in-law, there is some truth to what she will read, but it's only a partial truth (not even a half-truth really)

Here, there is a small percentage of people who have money and everyone else contributes to them in one fashion or another. Through taxes, through unfair wages, through unfair patronage and many other things. And the people here honestly believe that their government is doing what they can to combat those rich people and redistribute their wealth as best they can.

Well, the uneducated masses believe that. The educated minority knows better, but they are powerless to do anything. The government here actually pays the poor to come to rallies and money magically gets distributed to key places that affect the poor just before elections. The poor are very ignorant and almost always vote the way the government wants them to.

The unions have power here as well - but the government, for example, has ruled that the business themselves must pay the union fees. On top of a 40% contribution in taxes, on top of the mandatory healthcare payment, on top of many other local taxes and other crap that businesses have to put up with. It makes it very very difficult to do business here and make money.

I see similar things happening in the US as the "poor" scream that they are being left behind, and as the "left" says "we have to take the wealth from the richer, who can afford it, and give it to the 'poor' who are down-trodden and left behind."

I put the word "poor" in quotes above, because the truth is, I don't think there are very many poor in the US who have really any idea what poor means. Why is that? Because those we consider poor in the States often live better lives than (or at least equal to) many of the people who consider themselves middle class here.

I used to live in the Fifth Ward in Houston. I know whereof I speak. I certainly would not like to live like that - so I worked my ass off to ensure that I would not. But the people who live in places like that live better than most of the people who live around me, outside of my "special" closed neighborhood out here in Pilar. And this is an affluent area!

The Argentino rich live in closed neighborhoods, but the middle class live in small houses, on small properties, with walls around their one or two bedroom houses (with 3-6 family members) living in fear from the real poor, who live in crumbling unfinished-wall brick "buildings" (very ugly houses) The streets here, to my neighborhood, are so terrible that they are difficult to drive on and my car constantly has problems with tire balancing and front end alignment. But the streets to where many of the middle class live are unpaved and often muddy, and the streets to the poor even more so.

And that's just here in a small place in Buenos Aires. This is quite affluent compared to most of the rest of what I have seen in Latin America. Paraguay is a trip and a half!

I have written at times about my wife's family's origins. This is true povery of the class that you see on TV where people are begging money to help these truly, truly poor people who live (barely) at the whim of the weather on subsistence farming.

In the States, very few people have ANY idea what poverty is. My mother and my grandmother lived in poverty very similar to what I have described in Paraguay. That kind of poverty doesn't really exist any more in the States. Why? Because we HAD a work ethic where people were too proud to accept handouts from the government and we pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps.

Because although things are not perfect and people abuse the system, capitalism has allowed EVERYTHING to raise in relation to the rest of the world where capitalism is not practiced.

In my opinion, a free market system in which everyone has an opportunity (and the "poor" are not sucking the wealth [as in "redistribution"] from those who keep it running) will far out perform any socially-engineered program that man, at this point in time, can implement.

So in my opinion, what Obama is doing with many of the things he wants to do is fucking up the system with more overhead and engineered things, instead of focusing on things that are truly unfair practices by those in power and behind PACs who try to get everything they can for themselves, and whatnot.

Member #4112

09-22-09, 17:25

Let me give you an example of healthcare:

One of my clients is an Ob / Gyn physician, employs two other physicians and 18 employees. Each year the amount insurance companies pay for specific procedures (office, hospital and out patient surgery centers) declines. Add to this the fact the insurance companies continue to "bundle" services together at a lower price and the physician has seen a steady decline in income over the last 10 years while expenses have continued to rise. The physician has attempted to add more patients but reached a point where medical care was compromised and decided to stick with good care and continue to ride the decline in income. (I am sure malpractice concerns played a role in this decision as well as this client being an excellent physician who really cares about the patient)

Today this physician is still seeing more patients than 10 years ago but is making 41% less in take home pay due to the decline in reimbursement and increases in expenses. I should add this physician sponsors a 401(k) for the employees, contributes up to 10% in matching and provides PPO healthcare coverage for the employees.

Add to this the government required move to electronic medical records (a really good thing in the long run) but the physician had to shell out $350K for the hardware and software not to mention $28.8K in annual software and hardware support.

Now the reward for being a good corporate citizen and taking care of employees is ObamaCare. This physician has decieded if what is being talked about now passes, the area will be one OB / GYN physician short and 20 people will be out of a job as she will fold her tent and do something else, make a little less money and get out of the rat race. Now if you check the polls there are many physicans in the same boat, get out and do something else.

Fix healthcare? Get the lawyers out of it, get the government out of it, return to personal responsiblilty, referenced in earlier posts. Jackson and I had this very discussion in July, when we grew up you paid your on way, only went to the doctor when you really had to, only went to the ER if there was free flowing blood or bones sticking out and only had catstrophic care for the rally big bad things. IMHO, the worst thing that happend to healthcare is when the insurance companies invened to "CO-PAY" and you could consume all the healthcare you could for $10 $20 or $30. It completly divorced the cost of care from the payment of care for the patient.

Stan Da Man

09-22-09, 21:09

Stan,

The Dems are not going to let their boy go down in flames, and thus I can state with great certainty that Congress will pass a bill of some type that they will trumpet as "Health Reform", including a wildly promoted "Presidential Signing Ceremony" and endless claims of Democratic victory.

The only issue is whether or not they pass a bill that ACTUALLY reforms the health insurance business, including the health justice business, which the country has needed for many years.

Thanks,

JacksonDon't be so sure. Remember what happened last time sweeping health care was proposed? It was called HillaryCare. It was the big item for the new President Clinton. It was essential. We had to have it to maintain prosperity.

It was defeated and we went on to a decade or so of great prosperity, albeit with a few blips in between.

And, do you recall what came after it was defeated? Remember? It wasn't that long ago. Democrats tried to craft a number of plans and counter-plans, all with compromises designed to mollify this or that constituency -- exactly what is starting to happen now with the current plan. HillaryCare was finally declared DOA in September of 2004, just two months before mid-term elections, but the damage already had been done. Democrats were swept from office by an electorate that was angry about efforts to federalize everything.

Then, it was called the "Republican Revolution." It resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. Plus, the day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, and became a Republican. The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995.

Now, I'm not predicting that will again occur. But, we've already seen the start of some serious discontent over this. It does not matter what the "majority" wants. It matters what the majority of voters want. You piss off a large chunk of the population and they will show up at the polls.

Democrats definitely remember this. There has been just one intervening administration since this took place, and they only recently took back control of both houses. We can say what we want here about either party, but at the end of the day, every one of these guys and gals is most interested in one thing: How do I get re-elected?

Democrats tenuously picked off a number of Republican seats this last go-round. Those representatives are going to be mighty nervous next election, but they don't matter much because they are mostly in the House. The House has little bearing on health care. Democrats could lose a bunch of seats there and they still would have sufficient votes to pass ObamaCare. It's the Senate that's really the issue.

There are at least 36 Senate seats that will be up for grabs on or before November 2, 2010 (34 regular seats and two special elections) That's why my prediction is that this thing will not pass if it is not passed before Thanksgiving. After Thanksgiving, the campaigning for these 36 seats will begin in earnest. Those who vote for this things will have to defend themselves. They remembered what happened last time they decided to kick a hornet's nest. They will not let this thing fester. The longer they do, the more they are tempting fate.

Also, failure to pass this thing will not be "letting Obama go down in flames," just as it wasn't "letting Clinton go down in flames" last time around. He served 7 more years after HillaryCare was defeated and, arguably, got stronger every year until his last year in office, when he went on a pardon-binge for all the Friends of Bill and his popularity dimmed. From my perspective, he learned his lesson: Once HillaryCare was defeated, he never again tried to do too much, and he turned into a stellar executive.

Finally, one stray comment: Auto insurance is the same as health insurance. It's regulated by each of the 50 states. As a practical matter, it's not that difficult to get around state insurance regulation. It's called "surplus lines" in most states. Generally, you just need to establish that a certain type of coverage is not offered in a state. You do so by having an independent entity (usually a surplus lines broker) call up three carriers to see if they offer a particular type of coverage. For example, say you want to offer property insurance. You put a clause in your policy that says you cover a particular type of boiler against loss. Then, your surplus lines broker calls around and asks whether three random admitted carriers in a particular state offer this type of boiler coverage in their policies. They document that they don't and, voila! You can offer coverage from out of state.

Usually, carriers will form a separate off-shore entity to do this in some insurance haven like the Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands. It happens all the time. If you're a business owner, check your policy. There will always be a disclaimer there when you are buying coverage from a non-admitted carrier. Insurance companies figured a way around most state regulation long ago. And, these are not fly by night companies. My workers comp policy, for example, is offered by a Warren Buffet company. It is non-admitted and based in Bermuda, I believe. Great company. Surplus lines is not as common for health insurance, but it does exist.

Ricardo

09-22-09, 21:17

I ASSUME YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE US IS VIRTUALLY ALONE IN HAVING A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM BUILT ON A REIMBURSED FEE-FOR-SERVICE FOR-PROFIT MODEL.

Let me give you an example of healthcare:

Each year the amount insurance companies pay for specific procedures (office, hospital and out patient surgery centers) declines.

BUT INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS DON'T!

. Insurance companies continue to "bundle" services together at a lower price and the physician has seen a steady decline in income over the last 10 years while expenses have continued to rise.

BUNDLED SERVICES PROTECT PROFIT MARGINS.

The physician has attempted to add more patients but reached a point where medical care was compromised and decided to stick with good care and continue to ride the decline in income.

YOU HAVE AN HONORABLE CLIENT.

Add to this the government required move to electronic medical records (a really good thing in the long run) but the physician had to shell out $350K for the hardware and software not to mention $28.8K in annual software and hardware support.

THE COST OF THAT EQUIPMENT SOUNDS EXCESSIVE. AS FAR AS I KNOW SUCH SYSTEMS ARE NOT MANDATORY. AND THE OBAMA STIMULUS PLAN INCLUDED SERIOUS MONEY FOR EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE FUTURE SYSTEMS AFFORDABLE.

Now if you check the polls there are many physicans in the same boat, get out and do something else.

TRADITIONALLY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION HAS HAD THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF MEMBERS HARBORING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT THEIR CAREER CHOICE. THE CURRENT SQUEEZE IS MAKING IT WORSE.

Fix healthcare? Get the lawyers out of it, get the government out of it, return to personal responsiblilty.

LAUDABLE SENTIMENTS - AS REALISTIC AS MY WISH FOR RACISM, POVERTY AND WAR TO DISAPPEAR - (apologies to Jackson) - BUT THE ONLY CLOCKS YOU CAN TURN BACK ARE IN THE MOVIES.

It completly divorced the cost of care from the payment of care for the patient.

MORE THAN CO-PAYS CAUSED THIS - BUT THIS IS THE HEART OF THE PROBLEMI have yet to hear the opponents to so-called Obamacare propose any fix for the broken system that is reality based. If we go back to personal responsibility based health care, the number of doctors who will head for the exits will be a stampede.

El Queso

09-22-09, 22:29

I have yet to hear the opponents to so-called Obamacare propose any fix for the broken system that is reality based. If we go back to personal responsibility based health care, the number of doctors who will head for the exits will be a stampede.I doubt that last statement.

Also, I don't think no one has offered any alternatives. One thing that has been said again and again in these threads is insurance for the big things makes sense, for example.

The small everyday stuff should not be insured. General practitioners, the day-to-day part of their business, could run their practice as a regular business, I bet, if they weren't so worried about lawsuits if they honestly missed something (or being ruined if they made a mistake, etc) figuring out how to bill everyone's insurance and hoping that the bill gets paid in any kind of reasonable time without any kind of major headache, etc, etc.

Check out this related incident: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye7.1.1.html

I know, it's on LewRockwell. Com, haven of those crazy liberterians, but there is a lot of sense made there for people with an open mind.

Notice the part where he talks about paying cash at the doctor's office. The doc gives a 30% discount. Wow. Seems the doctor would prefer not to deal with the crap involved in filing insurance claims? Would this guy head for the exit with the proposed stampede if he didn't have to deal with health insurance?

Imagine how much this doctor could lower his rates if he didn't have to deal with all the bureaucratic crap he normally deals with? If he didn't have to pay a fortune for malpractice insurance? And everything else that is wrong with the current system.

Is it that we can't have real reform that would allow people to take care of their own day-to-day issues because "politics" won't allow it? Or is it because it doesn't make a good idea?

A policy that limits people to, say, $5K to $10K in out of pocket expenses for big things wouldn't be all that bad. It wouldn't be the end of their financial future paying off something like that and the big ticket items would be covered.

But in order to get things to the point where people would feel comfortable doing this, as stated previously, we would have to get rid of all the overhead crap, large settlements and cost of malpractice insurance, make sure that pre-existing conditions are not excepted, insurance can't be dropped, so and and so forth.

I guess the reality is that the American people have been hoodwinked by the AMA and the insurance and lawyers' lobbies into believing that insurance for every little thing is necessary and the politicians, some of whom at least know better, are turning a blind eye for one reason or another.

Everyone knows the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." While that does not apply in Obama's case (something does need to be fixed) I think the proper corrollary to that would be "if you can't fix it, don't try because you'll only make it worse."

El Queso

09-22-09, 22:39

You know, thinking about car insurance vs health insurance - imagine how expensive car insurance would be if it covered oil changes, wiper changes, general checkups, balancing of tires, cleaning and waxing and all the things required to maintain a car in good working order.

Honestly - if a policy covered all that and you had to have an insurance policy for your car anyway, wouldn't you use the coverage to do all the maintenance items? Whenever you felt the slightest shimmy in the left front tire (even though you just took it in a week ago and they couldn't find anything) Whenever the wipers left a little streak on the windshield?

Man, I bet mechanics would love that.

I know it's not a perfect analogy. Right off the bat, one can say "don't buy a car if you can't afford to maintain it," for example. But seriously, think about it.

Ricardo

09-22-09, 23:08

I doubt that last statement.

Also, I don't think no one has offered any alternatives. One thing that has been said again and again in these threads is insurance for the big things makes sense, for example.

IF THERE WAS A WAY TO MAKE SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZE THINGS NOT COST AN ARM, LEG AND HALF A TESTICLE WHAT YOU SUGGEST MIGHT WORK, BUT THERE AIN'T. HIGH COST PERMEATES HEALTH CARE.

Imagine how much this doctor could lower his rates if he didn't have to deal with all the bureaucratic crap he normally deals with? If he didn't have to pay a fortune for malpractice insurance? And everything else that is wrong with the current system.

THE MALPRACTICE PROBLEM IS REAL BUT OVERSTATED. WHAT IS MORE REAL AND UNDERSTATED IS THE GROWTH OF SPECIALIZATION. THE DOCTORS YOU AND OTHERS TALK ABOUT - GENERAL PRACTITIONERS ARE A DYING BREED. NO ONE SPEND YEARS IN MEDICAL SCHOOL ANYMORE TO STUDY TO BECOME AN INTERNIST AND MAKE HALF WHAT A SPECIALIST MAKES.

Is it that we can't have real reform that would allow people to take care of their own day-to-day issues because "politics" won't allow it? Or is it because it doesn't make a good idea?

IT'S NOT POLITICS AND YOU GUYS SHOULD GET THE IDEA IT IS OUT OF YOUR HEADS. POLITICIANS HAVE DUCKED THIS ISSUE FOR 80 YEARS. THE ONES WHO TOUCHED IT GOT BURNED. OBAMA IS DUMB IN MANY WAYS TO TAKE IT ON. BUT HE HAS BECOME CONVINCED, AS HAS THE MAJOR NON-MEDICAL BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT NO CHANGE IN HEALTH CARE MEANS THE US CONTINUES TO SLIDE BACK ECONOMICALLY.

Everyone knows the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." While that does not apply in Obama's case (something does need to be fixed) I think the proper corrollary to that would be "if you can't fix it, don't try because you'll only make it worse."BUT WHAT IF THE REALITY IS IF WE DON'T FIX IT WE'RE FUCKED?

El Queso

09-23-09, 00:01

Sorry man, and you're right we're beating a dead horse. Too many people think that nothing can be done other than what is being done, if only because anything else is impossible, for whatever reason. It's a difference between ways of thinking, each incomprehensible to the other.

We've reviewed many of the same facts and continue to each come to the same conclusion, each with the one that we started with. Which, of course, describes why we need politics.

Those of us on the opposite side of those in power tremble and hope to hell that you guys are right, but we can't help but doubt it.

Ricardo

09-23-09, 01:46

Those of us on the opposite side of those in power tremble and hope to hell that you guys are right.I ain't in power, I'm just cheering from the sidelines and hoping along with you something that helps is the end result.

WorldTravel69

09-23-09, 03:59

Who's Plan do you say is the best?

I know it is a tough thing to answer, but as a working man, the Union saved my ass.
You have read my Lists, am I a non productive person?

What is yours?

Have you Helped Anyone?

Where do you Stand for the Rights of your Fellow Country man?

Sorry it took me so long to watch the movie "Sicko".
Until you watch Sicko, you can not answer truthfully.

He asks questions and has no opinions of his own.

My brother does not like him for some right wing reason.

My brother watches O'Reilly, he might as well be a Moonie.

Maybe some of you have the same problem with a man of color, or woman?

They tried to discredit the Canadian, British, French systems of medical care and also the Argentina's.
In Argentina, I waited no more than anyone else as a patient. I was not treated as a special person, being an American. I had tooooo Wait the same time as everyone else did.

More to the Point is that I watched "The Life of Tommy Douglas" , on Argentine TV . "Tommy Douglas" will never be shown in the U.S. He was voted the Greatest Canadian.
.

Jackson

09-23-09, 09:51

Okay, is there anyone on this forum that actually believe this, or am I the only one who is ROTFLMAO?

No, seriously. I'd like to hear the supporting arguments from anyone who can make a case that any of the Dems proposed health care bills "won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront".

Alternatively, is there anyone that would like to make a bet on this?

Thanks,

JacksonI'm still trying to find ANYONE who will state publicly that they believe this.

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Or perhaps it's an inconvenient truth that the Messiah is telling a bald face lie to the American people?

Thanks,

Jackson

Ricardo

09-23-09, 17:40

I'm still trying to find ANYONE who will state publicly that they believe this. Bueller? Bueller? Jackson I challenge Jackson once he makes fun what follows to sketch out how the Cowpie plan he endorsed is consistent with his add-on requirements and how that gerry-rigged construct would work.

Let's be clear, there is no Obama bill at this time. However, he has set out a clear set of objectives for a reform program that must be turned into legislation by Congress. That's how the process works.

His objectives include a reform program that "will not add one dime to the deficit" and "be paid for upfront."

One needs to amplify thse simple phrases - not as a dodge, but as a way to flesh out the bumper sticker statements required by the media who have predetermined the public is too stupid or lazy to understand more complex and complete phrasing of economic statements.

The phrase "will not add one dime to the deficit" translates in economic terms into a plan that will be deficit neutral. That translates in practical terms to a bill that will include provisions for increases in revenues and decreases in costs to offset one another.

The end result is a plan that "will not add one dime to the deficit." The devil will be in the details of the final bill that emerges from the several that are under consideration and will be cut and pasted together into a final one.

Obama's "will not add one dime to the deficit." goal is not impossible, nor is it difficult - except for who ever has their ox gored. The corrupting influence of private sector insurance and pharma companies may prove Jackson right, but we ain't there yet. And Obama will fight to offset that influence until the final bill is about to be sent to the printer.

Face it we have been taking it in the shorts from these companies for decades.

The US is the ONLY industrialized nation with a fee-for-service, for-profit, non-universal coverage health care system. Not coincidentally, the US pays twice as much for worse care than any other industrial democracy. Common sense tells us if we pay double and get less, the money is there to get a new and better system that "will not add one dime to the deficit."

Waste, fraud, abuse, inefficiencies and excess profits worth hundreds of billions can be tapped to create a system to meet the deficit neutral goal.

Two points of proof related to fraud!

1. A few months ago the pharma companies offered to contribute $84 billion over ten years in future savings as part of the effort to get reform. I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY HAVE BEEN OVER-BILLING CUSTOMERS $8.4 BILLION A YEAR! Why didn't they give that back to their customers earlier? Is $84 billion a stretch or pocket change? If the pharmas can throw in $84 billion voluntarily, why can't and don't other sectors in the health business do the same?

2. A few weeks ago a major pharma company settled a fraud case against them agreeing to pay $2.4 billion to using bribery of doctors and hospitals to get them to prescribe their more expensive drugs rathe than cheaper, as effective alternatives. The actual defrauding was worth $11 billion, which is the cost to the customers of the criminal behavior of just this one company. The behavior they admitted to is SOP in the pharma industry.

Looking beyond fraud, examples would include limiting insurance firms ability to spend 25% more on administrative costs - including executive compensation - than Medicare spends and / or limit advertising budgets to 5% of annual incomes if they sell their drugs or treatments to federal health care agencies.

"Be paid for upfront" means that the savings and increased revenues be pre-identified. The savings from the billions of non-care related expenditures are certainly targetable and will be identified in the new plan. A myriad of revenue options exist.

They include:

- taxing Jackson, Sidney and any mongers making over $250k a year (and if that doesn't raise the needed funds add other Americans in the same bracket)

- tax insurance and pharma company profits whenever they exceed average profits of major publically traded manufacturing firms profits by 10% two years in a row.

- divert spending from the $54 billion spent each year on nuclear arms development.

- get out of Iraq sooner and save $10 billion a month.

- completely scrap the 'Star Wars' anti missile defense program which has already cost $110 billion in direct costs and still doesn't work.

- And so on.

It will be a few months before we see a final bill. Then we can debate whether the twin objectives of "will not add one dime to the deficit" and "be paid for upfront" have been met.

One thing we know is the Republicans will offer nothing realistic and if they succeed in blocking reform, people with insurance today will see their premium, deductible and co-pay costs rise far faster than their ability to pay, they will have coverage cancelled at a higher rate, they will lose coverage as they lose their jobs or transfer to new jobs, health related bankruptcies will skyrocket, the number of uninsured will rise faster, higher emergency room use costs will be passed on to the general public, more people will be sicker and more will die.

But if killing Obamacare keeps the health insurers profitable, its a small price and worth paying! We need to keep government out of our lives and leave it to private companies to create bubbles and busts, to destroy people's investments and savings, and to make us stupider and sicker.

The freedom of a few companies to gouge and for the super rich to get super richer is far more important for society than a wealthier and healthier general population!

Beuller signing out!

Dr. Roberts. You're on!

Ricardo

09-23-09, 18:49

Last weekend, Michael Schwartz, long time conservative activist turned Chief of Staff to conservative Republican US Senator Tom Coburn spoke about pre-adolescent boys to a gathering of religious conservatives.

Schwartz said: "It is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuals. And that's because they don't want to be that way. They don't want to fall into it, and that's a good instinct"

Schwartz continued with what he called an "astonishingly insightful comment" of a formerly homosexual friend, that "all pornography is homosexual."

Holy fuck I'm gay and I didn't fucking know it. At least 99% of mongers are probably gay too. Porno is quite popular in this subset of the population.

Thankfully, Jon Stewart reminds us that Schwartz may be a bit off base when he points out - "there's one thing eleven year old boys like even less than homos ---- girls?"

Trebek

09-24-09, 09:11

U. S. Issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-issues-7-trillion-debt-rb-118622363.html?x=0&.v=4

El Queso

09-24-09, 13:32

I guess whether you believe Obama or not, regarding his "defict neutral" plans, depends on whether you trust government to do what they say.

Of course, the reason "universal health care" was not enacted before now in the "real world" is because a lot (a LOT) of people, with good reason, don't trust the government even when it has good intentions. Now that the balance of power is a bit out of whack, it becomes easier to implement something that a very large portion of the country does not want. We have an effective tyranny of the majority.

Of course, the populace has a very good reason not to trust government. To begin with, at one time, it was instilled in us by Good Ol' King George and the way he treated our ancestors. Since then, government has managed to make promise after promise and break a damned good many of them.

It's a waste of time to talk about this any more because one side thinks it's ok for the government to redistribute wealth at gun point (the government has the guns and you will be locked away forcefully if you don't comply) and the other side is convinced that allowing people to be responsible for their own actions and allowing free markets, properly managed (which they have NEVER been - they need to be fixed) will allow many more people to be better off and even healthy than a big-brother-style government.

One side will never convince the other side and after seeing the conversations in here, I am more convinced than ever that it is so and that a two-party system is probably one of the worst ways in which to represent the people as far as choosing representatives to the government for the people.

Ricardo

09-24-09, 20:56

Sept. 24, 2009, 11:38 a. M. EDT · Recommend · Post:

Mass. Gov. Patrick names Paul Kirk interim senator.

Maybe next time. Keep your dick locked down!I've known him since I met him in 1973 and I was working in the US Senate and he was Teddy's top staff guy.

He is a great guy, very smart, down to earth, hard working, great sense of humor, dedicated to doing good, a straight shooter, doesn't suffer fools well, no ego.

You might actually like him if you ever met him and at the time your head wasn't up your ass!

Ricardo

09-25-09, 04:57

Eight months into his Presidency, Barack Obama retains considerable political strength, according to a new New York Times / CBS News poll.

At 56% , his approval is strong compared with recent presidents. At this point in his first term Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's (53%) and Clinton's (43%) (The Bush rating was skewed by 9/11 and therefore not a relevant comparison.

In addition, Obama retains a decided advantage over Republicans on prominent issues.

THE ECONOMY.

On the economy, more Americans think it is on the mend and credit Obama's stimulus package with having helped.

HEALTH CARE.

On health care, he is in a commanding position. Nearly two-thirds favor the Obama proposal to establish a government-run public option health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers. Most Americans trust Obama more than Republicans to make the right decisions on health care. The ratio of Americans who say he has better ideas about overhauling health care than Republicans is 2 to 1. And 76% say Republicans have not laid out a clear health care plan.

BI-PARTISANSHIP.

A large majority credit Obama for trying to reach across party lines. While, nearly two- thirds say Republicans in Congress are opposing Obama only for political gain.

PARTY PREFERENCE.

47% have a favorable view of Congressional Democrats.

30% have a favorable view of Republicans.

_________________________________________________________________

This is Ricardo News - We Report, You Decide, Some Cringe!

Trebek

09-25-09, 05:11

They are good. Timothy Geitner says that demand has improved.

The USA economy looks to be improving.

I doubt these theories about the Chinese and India taking over the USA are accurate. They have been claiming on this site for years.

Trebek

09-25-09, 05:15

I'm sick of the female bs in the news. Obama made the USA ok. The newspaper is somewhat tolerable.

They say Obama is the star of Acorn.

In a lengthy speech on the House floor today, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) declared that President Obama is "the star of ACORN, the lead, chief organizer."

Railing against ACORN, King mentioned Obama's comment on Sunday that he hasn't paid much attention to the scandal.

"Really, Mr. President?" King said, revealing the poster of Obama you see at left.

"He's not interested in ACORN? He's ambivalent about it?" King asked. "Curious."

King went on about Obama's involvement with the housing group, saying it was part of the "genesis" of Obama's political life. "He walks with them all the way through."

He then called on every committee in the House to investigate ACORN. The Justice Department's "lame little announcement" that it will investigate the group isn't enough, he said.

Lest you forget, yesterday King claimed that gay marriage is but a first step on the path to socialism. http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/rep-king-obama-is-the-star-of-acorn.php?ref=fpb

Trebek

09-25-09, 06:23

Pelosi: 'Trigger Is An Excuse For Not Doing Anything'

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/pelosi-trigger-is-an-excuse-for-not-doing-anything.php/

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is not ready to accept a trigger option in place of a public option, she said today at a press conference.

"And the evidence seems to point, at this caucus that I just went to, that a trigger is an excuse for not doing anything," she said, reports Greg Sargent. "But everybody is open to listening to what people have to say. The point was made over and over again that for one reason or another the trigger was not effective in the Medicare Part D bill."

But, reports The Hill, she said, "I don't even want to talk about a trigger."

Pelosi has said a bill without a public option will not pass the House. Today's comments seem to show that the trigger would not be an acceptable substituted.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) backs the trigger option, and the White House has reportedly been trying to convince progressive groups to do the same. This is good news. Every other modern country has universal health care. About time.

I do not see how universal health coverage would not solve the problem with no prostitution and all the fast food, obnoxious garbage in the USA.

El Perro

09-25-09, 11:41

Ricardo

09-25-09, 12:41

Actually, I was in the sophisticated world of ''hard knocks''. I doubt that I would have fallen for the propagandized Mr Kirk, who was seeking more government solutions, after the failures of LBJ, Nixon, and Viet Nam. I was in the world of managing big institutional money during the 1968-1974 bear market. Reality seem much more relevant to me than ''suckin up'' to grubby politicians an their lackeys!You were so busy making the big bucks you probably weren't paying attention when after he and Kissinger engaged in a little treason during the 1968 campaign dealing with the North Vietnamese making sure they didn't do a deal with Johnson and let Humphrey beat him, Nixon took seven more years to lose the Vietnam War, while adding Laos to his fuck ups.

Unfortunately you weren't managing big institutional money in 2008, otherwise no doubt the global economy would still be humming along.

I know all government can do is fuck up, but the good old private sector is always there to keep things on an even keel. (I'm having a Jackson moment here LOTFLMAO)

Here's a short list of the private sector managerial prowess (including the price tags in losses) mostly among big money institutions, to compare to the ineptitude of government:

This is the tip of the iceberg - adding up to losses to investors worth $1.7 trillion and counting.

FIRM LOSS.

LEHMAN BROTHERS $691 BILLION.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL $328 BILLION.

WORLDCOM $108 BILLION.

US BANKS (94 TO-DATE) $103 BILLION.

GENERAL MOTORS $92 BILLION.

ENRON $66 BILLION.

AIG $62 BILLION.

CONESCO $62 BILLION.

CHRYSLER$39 BILLION.

THORNBUURG MORTGAGE$37 BILLION.

P, G & E$36 BILLION.

TEXACO$35 BILLION.

BEAR STEARNS$15 BILLION.

MERILL LYNCH$15 BILLION.

INDYMAC$11 BILLION.

REFCO$4 BILLION.

FINANCIAL CORP OF AMERICA$2 BILLION

Member #4112

09-25-09, 13:02

Ricardo you and I agree on the point of private sector CEO pay being way out of whack, but while you are beating the drum on Private Sector failures lets just look back this year on how well the Government had done after taking over GM, Chrysler and AIG. Wow what a success story those are for Government intervention! Obama's guys just fessed up that all the investment in GM and Chrysler is in all likelyhood down the drain and will never be recovered (but it was a great payoff to the unions at the expense of the debt holders) and they don't have a clue about how much will ever come back from AIG (since we lowly taxpayers now own about 60%+ of AIG does that mean I get a seat at the table?

There is certainly enough blame to go around betwee Big Private Sector and Govermennt screwups and mismanagement. Goverment maybe good as some tasks but they don't have the brains or the balls to make it in business.

I am just waiting for 2010 to 2012 when the commerical real estate market colapses when the short term debt on the construction during the boom comes due and the delta between the loan and the current value is greater than the companies have in cash to bridge the gap. A lot of high priced real esate is going into forclosure. The big builders and others know this is coming but no one seems to be paying attention or doing anything about mitigating the ultimate colapse.

Ricardo

09-25-09, 14:54

There is certainly enough blame to go around between Big Private Sector and Goverment screwups and mismanagement.

(THAT was my point)

Obama's guys just fessed up that all the investment in GM and Chrysler is in all likelihood down the drain and will never be recovered.

(REMEMBER the auto companies were in trouble long before the fall of 2008 due to management stupidity; the crushing burden of the broken national health care system's ever increasing costs; and executive, worker and retiree compensation and benefit structures that were out of step with the companies' dwindling market share. When the Bush and Obama administrations decided to provide bridge funding to them there was NEVER an explicit promise that these were viable companies that would eventually repay taxpayers in full? The primary stated goal was to prevent an uncontrolled liquidation because such a prospect posed a systemic risk to the financial markets and the overall economy? A secondary goal was to advance broader goals including sustaining American manufacturing jobs at the firms and their enormous supplier networks. You may disagree with those objectives, but they have merit and may yet be proven to have been met. I admit I am less than enthusiastic about Obama's initial cozy support of Wall Street, but that is a game with a lot more innings ahead.

It was a great payoff to the unions at the expense of the debt holders.

(THAT statement is factually incorrect and a myth of the right wingers. Every stakeholder execs, workers, suppliers and investors took haircuts. You can check that for yourself)

AIG.

(WAS an awkward deal structured in extreme haste last October by Paulson and Bernaeke with three later iterations. A big part of the AIG dilemma was that their investment holdings and liabilities had been designed by their wiz kids to avoid regulation and became so convoluted that no accurate valuation could be set on huge components of the business and Treasury decided to just threw tens of billions into their pot rather than see the global financial system evaporate.

The big builders and others know this is coming but no one seems to be paying attention or doing anything about mitigating the ultimate collapse. We agree both on the fact that all of our institutions deserve failing grades and we are nowhere near out of the woods.

More tax cuts for the wealthy and elimination of all regulation, just don't seem to me likely to turn the world economy back into a jolly soft drink commercial- but that's just because my naive understanding of political economy and socialist tendencies has blinded me to the genius of the markets!

Wanna buy a bridge?

Jackson

09-25-09, 15:11

Eight months into his Presidency, Barack Obama retains considerable political strength, according to a new New York Times / CBS News poll.Your statement is a complete distortion of the truth.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month

On the economy, more Americans think it is on the mend and credit Obama's stimulus package with having helped.Your statement is a complete and utter fabrication.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/september_2009/36_say_stimulus_plan_has_helped_economy

Nearly two-thirds favor the Obama proposal to establish a government-run public option health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers.Your statement is an absolute lie.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

A large majority credit Obama for trying to reach across party lines. While, nearly two- thirds say Republicans in Congress are opposing Obama only for political gain.Again, another complete fabrication.

Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.

The purpose of this thread is to facilitate political debate based on differing interpretation of the actual facts. It is not intended for the broadcast of fabricated political propaganda, which you have lately developed a panache for doing.

Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

09-25-09, 15:13

Regarding GM and Chrysler, if you look at the percentages before and after the restructuring the DEBT HOLDERS took a bath and the UNIONS gained. In my original post I was specific as to whom I was referring - DEBT HOLDERS not STAKEHOLDERS and the numbers do not lie - it is no MYTH!

Since both companies seem to be continuing their downward spiral even with taxpayer money in their pockets, in the end it really won't matter the unions gained in the restructuring deal. It may even be humorous when the unions start pointing fingers for mismanagement and have to point at themselves. Sort of like who got to be at the helm on the Titanic on the last evening of the cruise!

Wild Walleye

09-25-09, 15:58

He just threw out the first pitch in the MLB All Star game.This morning, my 4yr old told my 7yr old that she looked like "Bo'bama" as she headed off to school. I asked "why?"

She replied "She's wearing 'mommy jeans'!"

That really made me laugh.

The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.

Ricardo

09-25-09, 18:42

Your statement is a complete distortion of the truth.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month

Your statement is a complete and utter fabrication.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/september_2009/36_say_stimulus_plan_has_helped_economy

Your statement is an absolute lie.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Again, another complete fabrication.

Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.

The purpose of this thread is to facilitate political debate based on differing interpretation of the actual facts. It is not intended for the broadcast of fabricated political propaganda, which you have lately developed a panache for doing.

Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Thanks,

JacksonIt's your baby you rock it.

But does this mean I will be banned from posting good jokes too?!

I could keep you busy fact-finding, but if you are Sergeant Friday with a monopoly on facts, there's not much point.

For the record, should others wish to independently vet the Obama poll findings I posted, the Times/CBS data can be verified as ACCURATE by linking to:
http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-confusion-over-health-care-tepid-support-for-war#p=1[/url]

As you familiarize yourself with polling a caution. Rasmussen's methodology and findings are suspect among many polling experts. His Obama numbers have been out of synch with competing pollsters since 2007, which is why he is considered the RNC's pollster of choice. But if he's your source - go for it!

Off for the weekend!

Schmoj

09-25-09, 18:52

Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.It's already become a miniature version of Fox News.

Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.Are you going to impose this on cutting and pasting directly from unsubstantiated "news" reports, etc? Or do you only sensor those you disagree with?

BadMan

09-25-09, 19:16

Jackson

09-25-09, 19:26

It's already become a miniature version of Fox News.

Are you going to impose this on cutting and pasting directly from unsubstantiated "news" reports, etc? Or do you only sensor those you disagree with?Hi Schmoj,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me enlighten you.

"Freedom of Speech" is a constitutional protection of a citizen's right to speak out against the government, and as such it is a restriction on government activities attempting to curtail this right.

However, this forum is a private enterprise, and as such I cannot be compelled to publish whatever you choose to post, much in the same way as the New York Times cannot be compelled to publish every letter you might choose to send to their editor.

What I do in my forum is not called censorship, it's called editing, and it is a necessary function and the responsibility of every media publisher who wishes to maintain an organized publication.

Thanks,.

Jackson

Jackson

09-25-09, 19:33

Ricardo

09-25-09, 20:49

Ricardo is welcome to post his opinions. What Ricardo may no longer post are blatantly inaccurate or unsubstantiated statistics.

Jackson Dear Editor In Chief!

Now, I don't know whether you ever worked for INDEC, so I can't gauge your professional qualifications for validating or invalidating statistics.

The basis of your complaint about my posting of the findings from the Times / CBS poll would give me pause. You cite a different pollster who at a different time asked different questions and got different results. Somehow you think that proves that I was distorting, fabricating and lying. Of course, it does no such thing.

I just reported what the good citizens of the homeland told the Times / CBS interviewers. Your problem is with those good people who gave responses that you find disturbing.

I doubt you are suggesting in the future that I private message you to get pre-approval for any statistical data I might plan to include in a post? I don't think that would work for me.

Now, do remember to go to the raw data on the Times / CBS poll using the link I sent when you get a chance!

Tienen un gran fin de semana,

Ricardo

Schmoj

09-25-09, 20:51

Hi Schmoj,

However, this forum is a private enterprise, and as such I cannot be compelled to publish whatever you choose to post, much in the same way as the New York Times cannot be compelled to publish every letter you might choose to send to their editor.

What I do in my forum is not called censorship, it's called editing, and it is a necessary function and the responsibility of every media publisher who wishes to maintain an organized publication.

Thanks,

JacksonFrom Merriam-Webster - Censor: to examine in order to suppress or DELETE anything considered objectionable. You used the term "free-speech," not me.

Just to clarify, do your editorial policies permit free posting of cut and paste jobs from sources like Fox News without any substantiation of "facts?"

As Ricardo said, it's your baby and you rock it. But I agree with BadMan 100%.

Tiny12

09-25-09, 21:12

Ricardo,

O. K. If you're going to use the dictionary definition of socialist, then Obama is not a socialist, at least not overtly. But he's doing his best to move the U. S. towards bigger government, higher taxes, higher spending, and more equality in terms of income even if equality means everyone ends up worse off. He's moving the U. S. towards a western or northern European style of government and an economy that's less dynamic.

I get the impression you may have been one of the most powerful people in the USA, a congressional staffer?

Stan Da Man

09-25-09, 21:18

That's some bullshit Jackson.

Let me get this straight, you won't let Ricardo post his opinions but you will let Sidney post his bullshit opinions, and you'll even make him separate threads where he can post his bs?

I don't see you fact checking all the bullshit that Sidney or other right wing nuts post. I understand your politics differ greatly from Ricardo's but he should have the freedom to make his points. He has been twice as civil as most of the people who have responded to him.

Deleting or trying to censure Ricardo's civil posts just means the intellectually bankrupt individuals on this forum are crying uncle.

Congratulations.

BMI'm all in favor of letting everyone post their opinions. That said, it is a private message board, not a public square.

I should add that the description of that poll by Ricardo was a far cry from what the actual poll said. Ricardo, you didn't post a link originally. You did post a link after you were challenged. For anyone wanting to read it, you can find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html I don't think it's the same link you posted, Ricardo, which is why I'm posting an alternate, in case your link doesn't work.

I'm not sure how you can quibble with Rassmussen when you place your faith in the NYTimes and CBS News. If folks are going to take issue with Fox News, then they ought to be willing to acknowledge the left-leaning bent of CBS, ABC and NBC News, and they certainly ought to be willing to acknowledge the full leftward tilt of the NY Times. I've known many journalists -- went to college with a few who became fine ones and know many of their pals. With one exception, they are all liberals. That doesn't make them bad people. But, it does color their perspective, just as it does the sole conservative journalist among them. I know there are those who will dispute this, but most of the major media outlets lean left. Fox is about the only place that will hire the conservative ones -- and the rest of the media makes sure everyone knows it. None of this makes any of the outlets bad -- just consider the source.

As for Rassmussen, I see on his website that he was endorsed by Susan Estrich, among many others. I would say that this is proof that he is not a right-wing conservative pollster, but I happen to know Susan Estrich personally. She is one of the dimmest bulbs on the planet, and I have never even talked to her about politics. So, her liberal endorsement doesn't mean much.

I did see one poll question that seems to have held true for several decades now: Congressmen (and women) are the least respected profession in the country -- lower than bankers, CEOs, lawyers, used car salesmen, journalists and paparazzi. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/september_2009/americans_now_view_congress_as_least_respected_job What are the most respected professions? Small business owners and people who start their own businesses. (See same link above) When these poll numbers reverse themselves, that's when we can be sure everything's going to he! In a handbasket. Until then, and despite what you read in the media, everything's fine.

Argento

09-25-09, 21:51

It's your baby you rock it.

But does this mean I will be banned from posting good jokes too?Ricardo keep your quality jokes coming.

This whole thread is very curious to a non-American member. For my money the difference between a US Liberal and a Republican is minor; disputed statistics and opposing political points of view not-with-standing. There are many more things in common than there are things that are opposed. I suspect that what concerns our Republican members is that Obama might be the thin edge of a socialist wedge. I don't see it as that and nor do I see that in Ricardo's posts. He is not exactly shilling Fox News, but as this chanel offends my intellectual ego, I see that as a plus. But then again, I am not a US citizen.

Argento

Ricardo

09-25-09, 21:51

I'm all in favor of letting everyone post their opinions. That said, it is a private message board, not a public square.

I should add that the description of that poll by Ricardo was a far cry from what the actual poll said. Ricardo, you didn't post a link originally. You did post a link after you were challenged. For anyone wanting to read it, you can find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html I don't think it's the same link you posted, Ricardo, which is why I'm posting an alternate, in case your link doesn't work.

I'm not sure how you can quibble with Rassmussen when you place your faith in the NYTimes and CBS News. If folks are going to take issue with Fox News, then they ought to be willing to acknowledge the left-leaning bent of CBS, ABC and NBC News, and they certainly ought to be willing to acknowledge the full leftward tilt of the NY Times. I've known many journalists -- went to college with a few who became fine ones and know many of their pals. With one exception, they are all liberals. That doesn't make them bad people. But, it does color their perspective, just as it does the sole conservative journalist among them. I know there are those who will dispute this, but most of the major media outlets lean left. Fox is about the only place that will hire the conservative ones -- and the rest of the media makes sure everyone knows it. None of this makes any of the outlets bad -- just consider the source.

As for Rassmussen, I see on his website that he was endorsed by Susan Estrich, among many others. I would say that this is proof that he is not a right-wing conservative pollster, but I happen to know Susan Estrich personally. She is one of the dimmest bulbs on the planet, and I have never even talked to her about politics. So, her liberal endorsement doesn't mean much.

I did see one poll question that seems to have held true for several decades now: Congressmen (and women) are the least respected profession in the country -- lower than bankers, CEOs, lawyers, used car salesmen, journalists and paparazzi. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/september_2009/americans_now_view_congress_as_least_respected_job What are the most respected professions? Small business owners and people who start their own businesses. (See same link above) When these poll numbers reverse themselves, that's when we can be sure everything's going to he! In a handbasket. Until then, and despite what you read in the media, everything's fine.If you go to the raw data link I posted and go through the material I would welcome you or anyone to point out any error I made in presenting the specific results on the items I listed.

Ricardo

Ricardo

09-25-09, 22:15

I get the impression you may have been one of the most powerful people in the USA, a congressional staffer? Nah! When I worked there all us staffers did was get coffee and shine shoes!

Member #4112

09-25-09, 22:49

Guys, regardless of which side of the fence you are on or even if you sit on it, how about a little respect and civility here.

This site was set up by Jackson for the enjoyment of mongering and the exchange of ideas and information. Does Jackson have the right to monitor and edit HIS SITE, yes he absolutely does. This is his "house" and his "rules". Just as you have the right to determine what occurs or is acceptable in your home, Jackson has no less the same rights in his "house" – Argentina Private.

Don't give me this "freedom of speech" BS either – go stand on the steps of the White House or Congress and vent all you want – that's freedom of speech. There are plenty of sites and chat rooms in which you may participate and express any opinion you may desire, but this site is not it. So cool your jets, take a chill pill and blow that out your bippy!

Rev BS

09-25-09, 23:13

If you go to the raw data link I posted and go through the material I would welcome you or anyone to point out any error I made in presenting the specific results on the items I listed.

RicardoEver hear the phrase, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

Ricardo

09-26-09, 01:18

EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE STILL WRONG.That may explain it!

Trebek

09-26-09, 07:15

In the USA. This is the webiste.http://teamstormy.com/.

I have never seen her porn.

SteveC

09-26-09, 15:41

Ricardo,

O. K. If you're going to use the dictionary definition of socialist, then Obama is not a socialist, at least not overtly. But he's doing his best to move the U. S. Towards bigger government, higher taxes, higher spending, and more equality in terms of income even if equality means everyone ends up worse off. He's moving the U. S. Towards a western or northern European style of government and an economy that's less dynamic.Sidney,

Is this your reasoning why you describe Obama as a socialist? Seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me. I'm not going to beg you for your reasons, you've been asked enough times already without us getting an answer, but I'm fascinated why you believe it.

Thanks,

Steve

Argento

09-26-09, 21:49

How ''Gubmint'' Works!

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly.

Let it sink in. Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. During the Carter Administration?

Anybody?

Anything?

No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency.

The reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready?

It was very simple. And at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977.

TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh?

And now, it's 2009.- 32 years later.- and the budget for this "necessary" department is at $24.2 billion a year. They have 16, 000 federal employees and approximately 100, 000 contract employees; and look at the job they have done! This is where you slap your forehead and say, "what was I thinking? "

Ah, yes.- good ole bureaucracy.

And, now, we are going to turn the banking system, health care and the auto industry over to the same government?Fantastic post!

Argento

BadMan

09-27-09, 00:30

Damman

09-27-09, 00:34

And, now, we are going to turn the banking system, health care and the auto industry over to the same government?We certainly know how Wall Street managed the banking system and Detroit managed the auto industry, their record speaks for itself. Didn't you work on Wall Street or was it in Detroit?

Whiskas

09-27-09, 03:32

We certainly know how Wall Street managed the banking system and Detroit managed the auto industry, their record speaks for itself. Didn't you work on Wall Street or was it in Detroit?Have you been in Caracas, Buenos Aires or México, you can see how the burocratic class grew under populist governments, their record speaks for itself. You actually want that for the US?

Ricardo

09-27-09, 13:59

Werd,

Pretty fantastic when Joe Eiban of conservablogs wrote it.

http://conservablogs.com/JoeEiben/?p=251

You might want to post a link and an authors name Sidney. Just so we can be factually correct.

Regards,

BMIs it stealing or borrowing or just innocently forwarding someone else's work?

Jackson maybe you need to add a new rule. When posting the work of someone other than the AP member, the post must include the identity of the original source. That would be in addition to the no all CAPs and no disturbing statistics from Ricardo rules.

I always post my own thoughts and opinions and research and take responsibility for them. I provide a citation when I quote another source. It's what my mother taught me.

Damman

09-27-09, 14:27

Have you been in Caracas, Buenos Aires or México, you can see how the burocratic class grew under populist governments, their record speaks for itself. You actually want that for the US?With all due respect, please spare me the fear BS about Caracas, Mexico and Buenos Aires. If we do nothing, guaranteed we will be there. Believe it or not, there is a middle ground in all of this.

All that is being asked is to restore some degree of integrity to the financial system in the US. Government regulation is one big pain in the ass, but is one necessary evil: keep them honest. The credibility of our credit agencies (Moodys) insurance companies (AIG) and banks, (TNC) is in the sewer. Read a bank's balance sheet and every number and endorsement is suspect. Most every swinging dick on Wall Street has some gimmick to show 300% growth in a quarter: unsustainable and defies logic. Forty to one lending ratio, give me a fucking break. What fool would do such a thing? Every damn unregulated bank. To use a phrase, "what were we thinking?" We always do the time for someone else's crime: Enron, Aig, General Motors, savings and loan debacle. Dahde. Without some policing, these people are loose cannons.

I am too old to worry about it anymore. I got mine, and hell with the rest of you. All I do know is, your way did not work.

Ricardo

09-27-09, 14:27

He is using a socialist agenda to assist his ambition. He is a dangerous man, greatly assisted by his bullshit oratory! I agree with Tiny 12's observations. What else do you want Steve?It's unbecoming to see an intelligent man taking such a purely paranoid position. It's also a lazy way to make an important point.

Why not argue "Obama is proposing programs, positions and policies I profoundly disagree with, that I believe will do grave harm to the American economy and the future well-being of the American people."

That is a position that is credible, mature and subject to honest debate. Then you can cite chapter, verse, facts and figures to prove your point.

The dictator thing shows a real lack of respect for the American people as it implies they might let Obama's oratory fool them into putting on their brownshirts.

You can do better.

Ricardo

09-27-09, 15:15

hook, line and sinker, the Obomination's bullshit. Sorry, I can't say it any more appropriately! Sadly, O's oratory has fooled you and other intelligent people! Please, watch what he does, not what he says!I watch what he does, listen to what he says and evaluate it based on a 30 years successful career in government and private business.

You buy hook and line the "free markets" fantasy that for Senor Greenspan and all of us was the sinker.

Damman

09-27-09, 15:17

And other ''non-regulators''! They had the ''tools'' to restrain growth and poor practices, but for whatever reasons failed to do so. The severe decline in volume was instrumental in the auto company demise. Correctly, auto management was terrible! ----------BTW, I saw the ''handwriting on the wall'' and quit GM 40 years ago. Then I began a Wall Street career. I have been mostly retired since 1982. Observed and traded my own account since then, with a couple of exceptions in the late 1980's.Sidney:

Reckless of me to imply and suggest your affiliations with Wall Street and Detroit may have questioned your integrity and values. I apologize for the implications. It was a cheap shot.

I am all in on Greenspan. Wish Volker had a louder voice at this moment in time.

Ricardo

09-27-09, 18:01

I am all in on Greenspan. Wish Volker had a louder voice at this moment in time.But remember Greenspan was from the "who needs regulation" crowd! Until seeing how the global meltdown put a big dent in his ideological construct, he appeared before Congress and acknowledged that the international finance guys do act irresponsibly and are greedy bastards after all!

Jackson

09-27-09, 18:42

That would be in addition to the no all CAPs and no disturbing statistics from Ricardo rules.They wern't "disturbing statistics". In fact, your original report contained NO statistics.

You later edited your report to add links to NY Times surveys.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

09-27-09, 18:44

Stan Da Man

09-27-09, 19:48

It's unbecoming to see an intelligent man taking such a purely paranoid position. It's also a lazy way to make an important point.

Why not argue "Obama is proposing programs, positions and policies I profoundly disagree with, that I believe will do grave harm to the American economy and the future well-being of the American people."

That is a position that is credible, mature and subject to honest debate. Then you can cite chapter, verse, facts and figures to prove your point.

The dictator thing shows a real lack of respect for the American people as it implies they might let Obama's oratory fool them into putting on their brownshirts.

You can do better.Agreed. I think in his own way, that is what Sid is doing. But, there's so much hyperbole and overstatement that it's tough to take. I don't agree with many things Obama is doing in terms of exerting government influence on all facets of the economy. But, I'll take my hat off to him in a variety of areas -- especially in the international arena. What he did over the past week with missile defense in Eastern Europe, then getting Russia's support on Iran, then turning the table on Ahmadinejead at the G20 on their nuke program -- well, that was masterful, in my opinion. Very well played, at least in my book. Bravo.

As for the notion that lack of regulation caused the current financial malaise: There is a very, very strong case to be made that over-regulation is the culprit. Years of government interference in the housing market created false incentives. Nowhere was this more obvious than the government-sponsored entities (now government-owned entities) Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Loan a pile of dough to whomever. What does it matter? Fannie and Freddy will buy the mortgage pool. Granted, the private sector definitely got in on the act. But, without the false, government-created incentives, it is far more likely that we would simply be going through another run-of-the-mill recession right now. And, there should be no debate about whether recessions are going to happen. They can be delayed or hastened a bit by monetary policy and other factors, but they are inevitable, just as boom times are inevitable.

Another factor associated with the latest downturn: Easy capital. But that, again, is largely due to government meddling. The Chinese for years have been manipulating their own currency. Geithner was the most recent to call them on this, until the administration muzzled him. The Chinese have always created false incentives to encourage saving and discourage consumption, and the government has kept its currency artificially low to increase its trade surplus and keep its economy chugging. As a result, the Chinese built up huge surpluses of cash, which had to seek out a decent return. Where did they find it? The USA, which resulted in a prolonged period of easy money here.

They've just started to address this at the G-20 but, again, this was the result of government meddling -- not lack of regulation. Admittedly, the Chinese are professional meddlers, but the notion that this whole mess can be laid at the feet of the "free market" is a canard, plain and simple.

Trebek

09-29-09, 01:26

Good deal.

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/_maloney_husband_death/2009/09/26/265212.html

Trebek

09-29-09, 01:27

Yeah this is health care.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_breast

Esten

09-29-09, 02:07

I have personally enjoyed the intelligent discussion in this thread from both sides, and think that Ricardo in particular has contributed significantly in this regard. I find the new requirement for his continued posting rather heavy handed. The guy joined in 2006, which makes it a stretch to think he is some "political operative". Jackson if you feel you need to reign things in, perhaps a more moderate position like 1 chica review, or 1 political post allowed per week. Requiring 5 chica reviews before posting anything else seems to be in effect silencing him.

Rev BS

09-29-09, 09:48

Yes, very heavy handed but also very predictable. But don't Argentina regimes have a long history of repression?

Wild Walleye

09-29-09, 12:12

Yes, very heavy handed but also very predictable. But don't Argentina regimes have a long history of repression?It is for Ricardo's own good to do some research on free-market-poon.

BadMan

09-29-09, 15:05

Yes, very heavy handed but also very predictable. But don't Argentina regimes have a long history of repression? Dead ass -

Well rounded contributors?

You mean for every 500 political copy and paste jobs sidney makes, he posts one 2 line review of a restaurant? Is that what's considered well rounded?

Right.

But yes, very predictable. This is a website owned and dominated by right wingers. I've just come to that conclusion. There is still some good information here, so I stick around. But it is useless posting in the political threads, you will get dog piled and if that doesn't work, censored or banned.

Regards,

BM

Schmoj

09-29-09, 15:58

But yes, very predictable. This is a website owned and dominated by right wingers. I've just come to that conclusion. There is still some good information here, so I stick around. But it is useless posting in the political threads, you will get dog piled and if that doesn't work, censored or banned.I agree 100%

SteveC

09-29-09, 16:17

I was expecting this to happen. Sydney getting battered, or 'bettered' in the argument, even making himself look pretty pathetic at times, and the guy with the rational arguments gets banned.

All those facts and figures. They must really hurt when they make you re-examine your beliefs.

Jackson

09-29-09, 17:44

This is a website owned and dominated by right wingers.BadMan,

You're wrong.

For the record, I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.

- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

The fact is that I'm a right-of-center moderate, but from a far left socialist's perspective, THEY are the centrists, and thus anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is automatically a "Right Winger".

Fernando22

09-29-09, 17:45

This is a website owned and dominated by right wingers.
I agree 100%Agree too.

And I particullary think that is the main reason of so many troubles with local people.

Have made some friends in local clubs, guys working there, also girls, that told me of the unsympathy for gringo mongers who write in this forum.

Can it be more easy man?

Insted of pushing and despising and trying to teach argies "how to live" or "how to manage" their economy behave a little in the friendly way?

Sure you'll get the better of them.

You'll get much more comments of girls and place that what already are. Two or three posts about that a day (against over twenty over political items) Look any local forum, and you'll check no less than 50 entries about girls, privados, night clubs. Not all of them because not all of them can write english, but sure many of them could translate their experiences here, enriching this way this forum.

Think it over.

I'm not argie monger. I'm from Netherland so I not take part in this confrontation.

Hope this can help.

Jackson

09-29-09, 17:48

I find the new requirement for his continued posting rather heavy handed. The guy joined in 2006, which makes it a stretch to think he is some "political operative".Hi Esten,

It's not a "new requirement". In fact, it's a well-established but rarely needed anti-SPAM policy on my other forums.

This is just the first time I've had to enforce it on ArgentinaPrivate.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

09-29-09, 18:00

Don't you just love it, when the argument descends to name calling and gross categorizations of the folks you don't agree with and in most cases don't even know? When you lose the argument you resort to name calling and denigrating others with your "labels". I know Jackson and he is nowhere near a right wing radical – though I keep trying to recruit him.

Guys, grow up and quite sniveling, you sound like a bunch of kindergarteners whining about something at recess. Give it a break and move on.

BadMan

09-29-09, 18:25

The motherfucking Irony

Don't you just love it, when the argument descends to name calling and gross categorizations of the folks you don't agree with and in most cases don't even know? When you lose the argument you resort to name calling and denigrating others with your "labels".
grow up and quite sniveling, you sound like a bunch of kindergarteners whining about something at recess.smh.

But do continue. Jackson has made it safe for you to post once more. Must be nice to talk out of your ass when a quick PM can silence the opposition. Enjoy your right wing thread.

Regards,

BM.

SteveC

09-29-09, 18:55

Jackson,

We have a lot in common, I could say this too.

I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.

- I am against the death penalty.

- I am against any government support of religious organizations.

- I am for the legalization of drugs.

- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.

- I am for a woman's right to choose.

- I am for comprehensive sex education.

And calling Sydney your buddy maybe went too far. Withdrawn.

Steve

SteveC

09-29-09, 22:41

Now that Ricardo has been banned from putting an alternative point of view, can we rename this thread "Sydney's propaganda against the USA government"?

And I'm not sure about the validity of Walt and Cindy's survey. Maybe it is unfunded, but as a former designer of surveys (Master's Degree in the subject and employed by government and private industry designing them) its about as valid as Congressman Jones' apology to the President. OK, he meant it REALLY sincerely.

Anyone who can say "The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP " is hardly an impartial source.

Finally, "The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration", ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. That is becoming the joke of the decade.

Stan Da Man

09-29-09, 22:45

This letter to the AARP says it all. It is a must read regardless of your age. Some people just make sense in what they say. This lady certainly does. Please forward this to everyone on your contact list.

This was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP.

Dear Mr. Rand,

Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it's abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces whom we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.

This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage, but even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.

Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING? Someone has broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

I DON'T choose to welcome them.

I DON'T choose to support them.

I DON'T choose to educate them.

I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.

American home invaders get arrested.

Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?

We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America. Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.

We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.

I am disappointed as hell.

I am scared as hell.

I am MAD as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!

Walt & Cyndy.

Miller Farms Equine TransportGreat letter? I can't fathom why anyone would think that letter "says it all." It's nothing more than some crank who says "This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us" for no identifiable reason -- there's something incoherent in there about a "bloodstained heritage" which is nonsensical, but there's nothing else. Then this lunatic purports to take the AARP to task for offering to send its members communications in Spanish. Next, the twit jumps to the conclusion that all Spanish speakers in the USA are illegal immigrants. Phew! You like this garbage, huh?

I'm glad you're not a conservative. You'd give us a bad name by endorsing this drivel. If this is what we've got to look forward to, please bring Ricardo back.

BadMan

09-30-09, 12:32

There are some real idiots in this world. Glad to know Sidney agrees with their angry racist views.

Regards,

BM

Great letter? I can't fathom why anyone would think that letter "says it all." It's nothing more than some crank who says "This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us" for no identifiable reason -- there's something incoherent in there about a "bloodstained heritage" which is nonsensical, but there's nothing else. Then this lunatic purports to take the AARP to task for offering to send its members communications in Spanish. Next, the twit jumps to the conclusion that all Spanish speakers in the USA are illegal immigrants. Phew! You like this garbage, huh?

I'm glad you're not a conservative. You'd give us a bad name by endorsing this drivel. If this is what we've got to look forward to, please bring Ricardo back.

Member #4112

09-30-09, 12:53

I don't agree with you BM.

I you read the letter these folks are obviously speaking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, the majority of which are Spanish speaking. They don't wish to participate in supporting them in any way, which is certainly their right to state this opinion.

Regarding their statement about the administration scaring the hell out of them, it is their opinion and they are entitled to it, with or without supporting arguments, or does freedom of speech only apply to liberals and not moderates or conservatives?

If you watch the Rasmussen polling data, the Carmel One's numbers are sliding downward fairly rapidly for a new president. It appears there are a growing number of folks who believe as the authors of the letter do regarding his administration, perhaps not scaring the hell out of them but giving them reason for pause.

By the way, I too am appalled I must "press 1 for English" in my own country. In my travels I have not seen other countries cater to a foreign population as we do in the United States. IMHOP

BadMan

09-30-09, 13:04

You're pathetic Sidney. Go cry to Jackson again so no one messes with your right wing propaganda thread. You thrive off of this. Spam emails and angry rhetoric.
With his normal drivel and name calling!

Glad to know you agree in people being entitled to their opinion dopple. Too bad Ricardo isn't included as per jackson sidney and yourself. Oh wait, maybe whoever wrote this spam email should.

grow up and quite sniveling, you sound like a bunch of kindergarteners whining about something at recess.My Personal opinion is whoever wrote that is an ignorant angry racist.

it is their opinion and they are entitled to it, with or without supporting argumentsRegards,

BM

Jackson

09-30-09, 13:29

or does freedom of speech only apply to liberals and not moderates or conservatives?You have to remember that liberals believe that THEY are the moderates.

If you watch the Rasmussen polling data.As previously stated here, the New York Times is the ONLY organization that conducts accurate polls.

El Alamo

09-30-09, 13:50

Sidney,

Are they still upset that you are the one with the 14 inch schlong - certified by the Guiness Book of Records.

Lysander

09-30-09, 15:41

Ricardo,

The purpose of this Forum is to provide for the exchange of information between Men on the subject of finding Women for Sex.

Persons (and especially political operatives) participating in the forum solely for the purpose of debating politics are in fact SPAMMING the forum.

Therefor, your next 5 posts must be first person reports of your recent experiences with working girls here in Argentina.

Thanks,

JacksonFair enough Jackson. It's your show and you make the rules. However, if you are going to be consistent in applying an anti-spamm policy, you could apply your editorial prerogative to stop the endless stream of long-winded, diatribes about US politics and economics being generated daily by other prolific posters from cluttering up this otherwise useful forum. There are numerous other forums for people who want to discuss subjects which are completely irrelevant to the stated purpose of this board.

Member #4112

09-30-09, 16:50

BM,

Back to name calling I see. I guess anyone who does not agree with you is a right wing angry racist. What a simple and wonderful outlook on life.

I have to agree with Jackson, the site is primarily for the dissemination of information about mongering in Buenos Aires. I have enjoyed the site for years due to all the information contained herein and IMHO the addition of the “political threads” has only detracted from the site.

I seem to be seeing more “political” posts than “chica” posts. What a sad state of affairs.

BadMan

09-30-09, 18:29

Please reference where I wrote that?

And yes, calling people sniveling whining kindergardeners is name calling.

But you said that. Not I.

Congrats on your delusional state. Political posts? I haven't made any in years. Sidney on the other hand makes 10 a day.

This thread is pretty much a joke. The one " Liberal " poster got banned for making sense.

Regards,

BM

* waits for more right wing propaganda emails*

BM,

Back to name calling I see. I guess anyone who does not agree with you is a right wing angry racist. What a simple and wonderful outlook on life.

I seem to be seeing more "political" posts than "chica" posts. What a sad state of affairs.

SteveC

09-30-09, 18:44

I seem to be seeing more "political" posts than "chica" posts. What a sad state of affairs.There's a really easy solution for your sadness. Ignore this thread. Just try it and your quality of life will undoubtedly improve. No more surges in your blood pressure.

Originally posted by QuakHunter.

"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".

Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

Originally Posted by Sinistra.

"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's reply:

"Because sometimes it's interesting to read other people's opinions."

The good old days, less than three months ago.

Cowpie

09-30-09, 22:08

The only reason I read this thread is to get Jackson and Sid opinions. I've met both on previous trip to BA and their regular Americans with a healthy perspective of the world as it really is.

The other opinions only make me smile and wonder if they fell off a Christmas tree or turnip truck and hit their big heads, impairing their ability to demonstrate even the most elementary aspects of common sense. I guess it's better than injuring their little heads and impairing their ability to demonstrate even the most elementary aspects of fucking.

Having said that I think it's best to go back to talking about pussy.

P. S.

I'm coming down in a few weeks, the first rounds on me.

Schmoj

09-30-09, 22:38

The only reason I read this thread is to get Jackson and Sid opinions. I've met both on previous trip to BA and their regular Americans with a healthy perspective of the world as it really is.Horseshit! They are regular Red State Americans who happen to live in another country. Or at least visit one every now and then.

Fortunately, Fox News doesn't speak for the entire country.

Trebek

10-01-09, 01:28

I am a big fan. I do not have a doubt that things will continute to go his way. The corporate bias in the media is waning, these celebrities in the news are reeeling. The republican b-list has been out in full force.

I do not know if any Democrat party members are here but I'd say it's the place to be if you are partisan.

The networks are desperate for ratings, I think Obama is getting his message out for free. Walking through the supermarket and you see Michelle Obama hung out to dry. Take a look towards huffington post or politico. The super playboy type american babes are taking a swing towards the political arena.

I see this teamstormy. Com website. She is posting on this board, wsg, or wsa. Weird.

Gato Hunter

10-01-09, 01:50

This thread just makes more page hits for google ranking.

Jackson

10-01-09, 14:33

Greetings everyone,

Effective immediately there will be no more wholesale posting of articles copied from other sources.

Members wishing to cite other sources of information may do so by posting a link to said source, accompanied by their own, personally authored comments.

However, members may quote portions of text from other sources, provided that said quotes are:

1. Properly attributed to the other source, and...
2. Correctly formatted using the Forum's Quote Tags (http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/announcement-quotetags.php), and...
3. The poster's own comments exceed the length of the quoted text.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the correct use of the Forum's Quote Tags, please review these instuctions (http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/announcement-quotetags.php).

Thanks,

Jackson

Schmoj

10-01-09, 19:30

Greetings everyone,

Effective immediately there will be no more wholesale posting of articles copied from other sources.Didn't you always want to be a high school English teacher?

Jackson

10-02-09, 06:04

Didn't you always want to be a high school English teacher?No.

Actually, I hate this job, and I look forward to the day when managing this forum will no longer be my responsibility.

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

10-02-09, 12:37

Didn't you always want to be a high school English teacher?Sometimes, it is the only thing that separates us from other primates.

El Alamo

10-02-09, 14:11

Of the 4 sites under consideration, Tokyo, Madrid, Rio and Chicago - Chicago was immediately eliminated in spite of President Obama and his wife Michelles publicity stunt.

I wonder who is giving President Obama advice. I wish him well, but doesn't he have enough on his plate. I think people without employment and people without medical care wish he would keep his eye on the ball.

Either he is starting to believe his own fucking bullshit (the world worships me) or our worst fear has come true. We have put, take your choice, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy or Daman Wayans, in the White House.

P.S. Oh, I forgot. Maybe it is a good thing President Obama travelled to Europe. At least he can't fuck up the economy as much when he is out of the country

SteveC

10-02-09, 20:06

EDITOR'S NOTE: The general posting sections of the Forum are not the place to voice your complaints about the Forum's rules or operating procedures. In the future, please send any complaints about the Forum to me personally by email or PM, or post them in the Comment on Forum Rules section. Thanks!

Miami Bob

10-05-09, 01:38

Toymann

10-05-09, 01:39

Just watched the Fox segment. Quite interesting amd informative. I now have a much better understanding of how the Acorn debacle relates to Obama. Albieght it's a dotted line, though where there's smoke there may be fire. Quite informative. For those of us who still derive our livelyhood in the US certainly the concept of "redistributung wealth" is just totally in outer space. For those "on the dole" I'm sure it sounds great!

Happy Mongering All.

Except the serial antagonist Ricardo!

You can kiss my $SS!

Toymann

To my Buddy Bob. What's the shortest book ever written?

What I Love About America! by Michael Moore, edited by Nancy Pelosi

Monger on Bobby. Toymann

El Alamo

10-05-09, 07:53

Your response will be partician bull shit. As is my response to partician bull shit about the president. Hate him all you want, be don't claim to be objective. The birthers are also another facinating movement. My sister, who is a physician recieves three email+ per day telling her about the secret plan to put all md's on a less than $100,000. Per year salary.

Michaels More's new movie will infuriate most of the regular posting members.

It is about the abuses of unregulated capitalism where the real power is the multinationals, the insurance and drug industires and all pretense of a true democracy is slipping away--Michael More knows nothing about economics, but.

Likely will have more than a few legitimate complaints will will be lost his his editorial commentary and twisting of a few key facts.The abuses of unregulated capitalism pale in comparison to the abuses of unregulated government. Unregulated government gives you paradises like North Korea and Cuba.

I haven't heard of many people risking their lifes to live in countries with unregulated governments. However, millions of people have risked their lifes to live in countries with unregulated capitalism.

P.S. my dream is to see that fat piece of shit Michael Moore on an inner tube, paddling to Cuba, surrounded by sharks.

Wild Walleye

10-05-09, 13:28

I have grown to like Ricardo and even agreed with him on something (forgot what that was) In fact, I am hoping that I will be able to buy him a drink when I return. Miami Bob can vouch for the fact that despite my "moderate, middle of the road perspective" on politics, I am perfectly enjoyable company in a loud (loud enough so you can't hear me talking) bar full of beautiful women (to distract me from discussing politics) However, with all due respect, I must call out our intelligent, liberal friend on this egregious response.

To defend Acorn with "two wrongs make a right" is the stuff of pure partisans that don't process the information. I am certain that Ricardo will, upon further review provide a much more thoughtful post on Acorn, independent of the "it's Bush's fault" cover.

The accounting for the cash that was doled out in Iraq is incomplete at best but totally unrelated to Acorn. The fact that government waste is a cancer on our society and economy and that it exists within every nook and cranny of our government is one of the single best arguments for smaller government.

FYI, most of my friends are more liberal than me (tongue in cheek--I. E. Less conservative--get it?

Toymann

10-05-09, 15:12

P. S. My dream is to see that fat piece of shit Michael Moore on an inner tube, paddling to Cuba, surrounded by sharks.Right on Alamo! You kill me. I'm Sure even Liberal Bobby is laughing about this one. Monger on Dude!

Toymann

Hound

10-05-09, 16:22

BO is a do-nothing President, or so it's suggested.

Saturday Night Live brings a little levity at BO's expense in it's opening skit this past week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cfk2UKewTU

El Alamo

10-05-09, 18:59

I sympathize with President Obama on this one. However, I wish President Obama would cut through the shit and make a decision.

If you take the long view, Afganistan is never going to be a viable country. If it were up to me we would be taking our boys out of harms way on the next flight out. Let somebody else worry about that worthless wasteland

In my opinion, every one of our boys killed in Afganistan is a waste and a disgrace.

We can leave Afganistan now or we can get our butts kicked out later. Even if we could clone Alexander the Great, it wouldn't make any difference. Even pretty boy Alexander had to pickup camp and leave.

When are we going to learn. The lessons are there I. E. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Haiti, Panama, Granada, Somalia, Iraq and Afganistan. Don't go into those shitholes. No es un asunto nosotros (It is not our problem)

Damman

10-05-09, 19:19

In my opinion, every one of our boys killed in Afganistan is a waste and a disgrace. Thank-You El Alamo. Restore the Draft (no exemptions) and all this shit will come to an end.

El Alamo

10-05-09, 20:26

Even Ricardo agrees with me on this one.

Afganistan is a place we shouldn't be.

Reagon sent troups to Lebanon but much to Reagon's credit he realized his mistake and pulled the troups. Does anyone think the situation in Lebanon is worse today because we left? Fuck no.

Bush Senior or Clinton sent troups to Somalia. One of the two pulled our troups. Does anyone think the situation in Somalia would be better if our boys were still dying there. Fuck no.

If I were President Obama I would tell the fucking generals in Afganistan to stick it up their filthy asses.

Twenty years from now nobody will remember that we were in Afganistan except the families who lost their sons in that worthless shithole. Furthermore, there will not be one iota of evidence that our presence in Afganistan benefited even one person for even one second.

P.S This might be shocking but Afganistan is not on the verge of developing a hydrogen bomb. Afganistan would be lucky if they figured out how to fry an egg.

Esten

10-05-09, 23:10

The abuses of unregulated capitalism pale in comparison to the abuses of unregulated government. But that should be no reason to not attempt to correct the abuses of unregulated capitalism.

Gato Hunter

10-06-09, 00:00

George Washington made it clear from day one that civilian control over the military is paramount in a democracy.More important was what Eisenhower said.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

The war machine has much more influence than any general or president. If a general or president stands up to them they are liquidated, plain and simple. This also applies to foreign leaders that don't agree.

I once worked for the "Lazy B ranch" making things that could give you a permanent orange afro, most are still classified. Yes I stole that line from Akaroid. The war machine corporations run the US govt, and have for 60 years. If you don't believe it your in fantasy land.

Cheers!

Schmoj

10-06-09, 01:01

The war machine corporations run the US govt, and have for 60 years. If you don't believe it your in fantasy land.One of the most accurate statements on this entire board.

SteveC

10-06-09, 01:07

One of the most accurate statements on this entire board.Even Sydney has to agree with this. We agree at last!

Miami Bob

10-06-09, 05:02

How do we regulate and keep government reasonably under control? That is the trillion dollar question? Both parties are corrupt. John McCain spent years trying to pass legislation to reform the election process and power peddling. He and teddy kennedy worked together on two diffenent occassions and couldn't get either a republican nor democratic congress to reform the process.

I personally criticize michael more and wish the he would just stifle himself a little bit--to be more of a journalist so that more people would take more of his critiques more seriously. His movie SICKO was great, but again a little over the top. It influenced one executive at Cigna health to blow the whistle on their internal policies. He was so moved by more's movie that he destroyed his own carreer in the health insurance industry. Guilt as the corruption he was part of daily. There has been no regulation. The regulation is worse than the corruption?

Toymann

10-06-09, 05:14

You are always about the hugs dude! LOL! I'll be bangin one of your're honeys in less than two weeks buddy. Now the details of that encounter will warrant a coffee! LOL. A full report will be forthcoming under the cloak of silence, as always. Monger on Dude. Toymann

PS. Now you know why we never talk politics Bob. Better for our relationship. LOL.

Canitasguy

10-06-09, 15:25

I assume this is the right thread to pass this along.

According to a new international survey that measured the global image of 50 countries, the U. S. Is once again the most admired country globally.

Here's a link: http://www.gfkamerica.com/newsroom/current_pr/index.en.html

The study - "The 2009 Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index (NBI)" - shows the U. S. Re-taking the top spot as the country with the best overall brand, up from seventh last year.

The survey, conducted by GFK Roper Public Affairs & Media, part of the world's fourth largest market research company, interviewed 20,000 people in 20 rich and developing countries around the globe rated 50 nations in categories such as culture, governance, people, exports, tourism, landscape and education.

What is really the news here is that the U. S. Reclaiming top billing is attributed to international respect for President Obama and his administration.

"There is no other explanation," according Simon Anholt, the founder of NBI, the polling agency, referring to the impact of Obama.

Apparently Anholt is one of the world's leading authorities on national image and identity. His operation CBI advises national, statel and city governments on their identity and economic marketing strategies.

In an interview about the study, Anholt claims that during Bush years, the U. S. Suffered in the world ranking with its unpopular foreign policies.

Anholt says: "What's really remarkable is that in all my years studying national reputation, I have never seen any country experience such a dramatic change in its standing as we see for the United States for 2009" since Obama was elected.

He points out that improvement in its standing came about, despite the fact that the world's economic problems spread from the U. S.

We're Number One. Sounds good for a change!

Toymann

10-06-09, 16:04

If only Americans felt the same way about Oboma and his administration. We'd all just have one big world-wide group hug.

Because WE DON'T!

Monger on All.

Toymann

Canitasguy

10-06-09, 18:46

If only Americans felt the same way about Oboma and his administration. We'd all just have one big world-wide group hug.

Because WE DON'T!

Monger on All.

ToymannBut, where do you get that Americans "DON'T" like the President. Most Americans in the U. S. do like him and think he is doing a good job, according to all the polls done in the last few weeks.

Even Fox has 50% saying he's doing a good job and 42% saying he isn't. That spread is repeated when the Gallup, NBC / Wall Street Journal, CBS / NY Times, Fox and Rasmussen polls are combined. Check it out on the U. S. Polling sites.

Maybe it's just the mongers you hang with in Buenos Aires that don't like Obama for some reason?

Esten

10-07-09, 00:06

Canitasguy,

Some of us like Obama and support what he is doing. That global image poll is quite interesting and I'm sure he finds it encouraging that US came in first. And how ironic Iran came in last. lol

In the UN's human development index though, Norway ranks as the best place to live, followed by Australia, Iceland and Canada. The US comes in at #13.

Esten

10-07-09, 00:30

The title says it all: "Why Rupert Murdoch Will Fire Glenn Beck". Something about hateful speech and advertisers pulling out.

huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/why-rupert-murdoch-will-f_b_309373.html

Canitasguy

10-07-09, 00:53

Canitasguy, some of us like Obama and support what he is doing.Tonight AP released its latest poll taken over the last 5 days. Obama's performance approval is now 56% - up from 50% in September. While 39% disapprove, down from 49% last month.

His support from independents is up nine points and disapproval is down to 37% from 53% in September.

Approval of his handling key issues came in at 50% for the economy (up from 44% in September); 48% for health care (up six points) and 46% for Afghanistan (same as before)

Even 18% of Republicans approve his performance, up six points since September.

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1%.

Schmoj

10-07-09, 00:56

I think Esten and Canitas guy are really Ricardo in drag. Surely people don't actually approve of Obama. What are you guys commies?

And before I get accused of spamming, just wanted to mention I am headed to the illustrious Cocodrillo in a mere hour or two.

Miami Bob

10-07-09, 03:49

Who routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts? Congress has placed regulation of all group insurance policies under the dept of labor. The regulations say that the carrier cannot be sued if their follow their own internal policies--the federal courts have compared this system to having the wolves guarding the hen house.

These aren't left nor right issues--they are issues about corruption and lack of help for consumer either by private attorneys nor government regulation.

The shark eat ther smaller human fish on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately all of may be one of those fish one day.

The basic story line of SICkO IS A TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT being denied treatment that the carrier has their inhouse hack MD's have reviewed and denied. Moore then travels the world to see how the same situation is handled in other countries--which results that might shock many good americans. Yes, it's michael with his gratuitious jabs which may be factual or hyperbole, but the basic premise is shocking to folks from the usa who still think that the usa has the highest quality of life. We used to, but do not today.

Toymann

10-07-09, 04:23

The first rule of any good litigator is to always ask questions that you already know the answer to!

My response, would of course be No! That said, in my experience of treating patients I have never had first-hand knowledge or even heard of such an issue. I have sadly treated many terminal patients over the years and have never been denied payment by their insurance companies during their final days. Even more to the point, I also have rarely seen any patients coverage, during treatment, interrupted as a result of the carriers actions (on occasion I have seen coverage interrupted as a result of the patients actions)

As a result of attorney's being allowed to file lawsuits on "contingency" I am also somewhat hesitant to buy the arguement that the insurance company discontinues care because the patient is terminal. Any such action by the carrier would open it to legal recourse that would certainly survive the terminal patient (the attorney would of course still be alive).

We certainly agree on one thing Bobby. Insurance reform should be at the top of Obama's agenda. Healthcare reform is something totally different. Just for the record, I was raised in a socialized country with socialized medicine and the care totally sucks. Take it from a pro that at the end of the day it's pretty hard to find better healthcare anywhere in the world than the good'ol USA.

Monger on Bobby. Toymann

Canitasguy

10-07-09, 12:09

We certainly agree on one thing Bobby. Insurance reform should be at the top of Obama's agenda.Insurance reform IS at the top of Obama's agenda. And, he is piling up support from important national Republican leaders including Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Bloomberg, Bill Frist, Tommy Thompson, Howard Baker, Mark McClellan and many more. They surely aren't all socialists!

Stan Da Man

10-07-09, 17:39

TOYMANN--do you support health insurers.

Who routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts?Bob, you're a very nice guy. But, this is such a gross overstatement, it almost bears no comment. Unfortunately, I can't help myself.

There are no health insurers who "routinely deny coverage on terminally [ill] patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights."

Plaintiff's lawyers have wet dreams over precisely this type of claim -- they're an odd bunch, and I know dozens and dozens of folks who litigate these things. Anyone who litigates in the insurance "bad faith" area knows this is adulterated rubbish. They won't admit it until you get a cocktail or two in them. Until then, and especially in front of a jury, they keep their game face on. But, if you could make them take a candor pill, they would all confess that the game is stacked heavily against the insurance companies. For lawyers, it's the equivalent of taking sheep to slaughter: You get a 55 year old housewife with some rare form of cancer in front of a jury. She was denied coverage for some experimental procedure that clearly isn't covered under her insurance policy. Who do you think the jury is going to side with? The housewife or the insurance company? If you guessed the latter, then you've seen too many Michael Moore films.

The problem with the whole debate is that there is only one side doing the arguing. Plaintiff's lawyers who file these claims make their living by villifying insurance companies. And, there is plenty of "living" available. The better practitioners make 7 figure salaries. Those who run plaintiff's mills can make 8 figure salaries. I don't begrudge them their income. But, when you hear these folks complaining about the insurance industry, you had better consider the source. They are far more responsible for driving up insurance premiums than medical malpractice lawyers, especially since nearly all states have capped med-mal claims.

And, who are they making their arguments to? Lawyers in congress. There aren't a whole lot of former insurance reps in congress. It's lawyers persuading other lawyers about the "flaws" in the system, and there are big dollars at stake. Then, these same bozos have the gall to complain about the insurance industry lobby? It's more adulterated rubbish -- but it sells, so they keep at it.

Sure, the health insurers have lawyers, too. But, they're not saying anything. Why would they? Kill the claims and you stop the gravy train. Better to keep your mouth shut and bill by the hour -- cha-ching! -- everybody gets rich. Premiums go up, but they just blame the insurance companies for that, too.

No one talks about this. Democrats won't talk about it because "trial lawyers," which means plaintiff's lawyers, are almost universally contributors to Democratic politicians. But, this is where insurance companies spend vast, vast amounts of money. They talk a little about medical malpractice "ambulance chasers," but that's just a distraction. Most of the guys who pursue med-mal claims are pretty sharp. They have to be. They've got to know the law and a lot of the medicine involved. Not so for bad faith insurance lawyers. Any kid out of law school can pursue those claims, and many do just that.

Any insurance companies that "routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts" were driven out of business long, long ago. Actually, that's not true. No such insurance company ever has existed. The stuff I set forth above is no secret to the insurance industry. They know that these claims are a wet dream to the plaintiff's bar, and they govern themselves accordingly.

Finally, you do your argument a disservice by holding out Michael Moore as a standard-bearer. You can try to disclaim his idiosyncracies and fabrications, but at the end of the day, he's still Michael Moore. Nothing that comes out of that guy's mouth, or that he puts on film, is credible in the least. And, yes, I have seen Sicko. It's about what you would expect if you gave a plaintiff's bad faith lawyer a camera and said "go make a movie to promote your law firm." Filthy, adulterated garbage.

Damman

10-07-09, 18:26

Forget Michael Moore.

"Critical Care"

One of the funniest movies on health care. Whatever your point of view, you get to laugh. Best medication on the Planet: Humor.

Critical Care: http://www.jaman.com/movie/Critical-Care/0KLcQ7ex7xl0/

Werner Ernst is a young hospital resident who becomes embroiled in a legal battle between two half-sisters who are fighting over the care of their comatose father. But are they really fighting over their father's care, or over his $10 million estate? Meanwhile, Werner must contend with his nutty supervisor, who insists that he only care for patients with full insurance. Can Werner sidestep the hospital's legal team and do what's best for the patient?

Esten

10-07-09, 23:45

Nice post Stan.

Though I disagree with the last paragraph on Moore. To say none of his stuff is credible is not credible. His films leave some things to be desired, but I give him credit for shining light on things that otherwise get little attention. His impact on stimulating reflection, discussion and debate is significant and unmistakable. And I think that's a big net positive.

Miami Bob

10-07-09, 23:46

You will see the health carrier's at their best where dealing with high ticket end of life issues, not doing knee surgeries. Talk to the brain surgeons and oncologists.

WE are not discussing hatred for malpractice attorneys. That is another discussion.

I have significant contact with these types of situations on an ongoing basis.

My favorite story comes from a brain surgeon who gets on the or speaker phone with a health carrier rep:

Hi this is dr X calling from y about your patient Z. You denied authorization for the stent I requestested. I am in the patients brain and your decision will likely result in mr z's death. I need your full name or employee # for my operative report. There maybe a homicide investigation and I want to have the facts straight. Would you clearly state the basis for the denial of the stent.

The speaker is the head of neurosurgical icu at a major teaching hospital. He was providing tactics to doctors for obtaining authorizations from health carriers. This has nothing to do with hating attorneys. Don't let the general feeling of hate and anger which permeates this thread, let you take your eye off the ball here. Do You really want to intentionally have the health insurance industry making life and death decisions with no controls nor way to use the courts to protect the rights of average people.

Stan look up the rules. You are an intelligent guy. I this your preference--what you want for your family? How about you Toyman?

Miami Bob

10-08-09, 01:58

WW read this one--written by a successful businessman who thinks like a business man, but with concern for more than maximizing profit and without a pre-determined political agenda that provides an answer without thoughtful analysis appropriate to healthcare types of issues.

Bob

Trebek

10-08-09, 11:43

The group should get federal funding.

They are community organizers.

Check their website for more information.

BadMan

10-08-09, 13:18

Direct your font elsewhere. I have no time for your delusional rhetorical bs.

Regards,

BM.

El Queso

10-08-09, 15:12

Damn Hugo Jackson Chavez is on a deleting spree.

This is getting pretty bad. You're not even deleting commentary now just facts and figures.

Another good article, which will probably get deleted because it's not right wing propaganda. Read it very quickly guys before Jackson Pinochet wakes up.

Regards,

BM.Hey man, point out which other guys in this thread have not posted ANYTHING except political commentary.

Jackson made a statement a few days ago that Ricardo was free to post once he had made a contribution to the theme of this board, which should be something to do with mongering or could even have something to do with commenting on life in Argentina. As stated, he enforces that rule very strongly on his other forums. AP has been a little more loose, it seems to me, although I'm not sure why, but that will surely change one day when this thread gets too far out of control.

Bad Man, your comments, ignoring what Jackson said and continuing to harp on him like he is some nut case about to overthrow the crispy-clean American people for a dictator is pretty much how propagandist on BOTH SIDES act.

Now, I went through and looked at Ricardo's posts and he ONLY posts about politics, with the exception of one or two in the jokes section and stock market section (which is related) Why doesn't he just post a few facts or tidbits about Argentina and get on with the show?

I have to wonder why Ricardo has not posted a single piece of information about living in Argentina, or mongering, or what have you (that I saw) I could be wrong, but I would have sworn that I saw him mention at some point that he lived here.

But if not, are there no other blogs in which he can post, that are directly related to politics, where people are having these discussions? It seems a little odd to me that he is concentrating so much time trying to have "reasonable discussions" with those he considers diametrically opposed to his point of view, and those of a minority (it would seem) on this board.

Jackson's not running a political blog, he's running a mongering website that happens to have a thread on it which is getting out of control, it seems to me. When you have a thread that produces so much ire, it tends to take away from the rest of the theme of the board. That can actually be dangerous for business. It's why I quit posting here. It's ridiculous to keep trying to "convince" people of the other's point of view, and that's all Ricardo is doing on this forum.

The reason I finally wrote this, though, is because it cracks me up that you, Bad Man, of all people, would be giving Jackson a hard time for trying to restore some order on his forum with an iron fist. You, with whom I have had many conversations in person, about the fact that you are convinced to your core that totalitarianism is the only form of government that makes any sense! I assume that's why Sidney keeps making his comments about Chavez and other socialist / communist leaders in relation to you?

Canitasguy

10-08-09, 15:54

Jackson's not running a political blog, he's running a mongering website that happens to have a thread on it which is getting out of control, it seems to me. When you have a thread that produces so much ire, it tends to take away from the rest of the theme of the board.I occasionally look at the posts here. Like Queso I looked back at the political posts and compared them to the other topics. Of interest is the 9200 plus number of postings on the American political thread are about double those on any other thread. Given that fact one could argue that Jackson is actually running a political blog with other features.

Still, Jackson deserves a great deal of credit for creating and maintaining a very useful tool for people who live, work and play in Buenos Aires. Lots of non-political information is useful, some less so, but it still is a pretty good site as these things go.

As for Ricardo, his sin seems to have been having brains as well as balls and doing a pretty good job countering the bluster and bullshit offered in the juvenile attacks on Obama. He sure pissed some people off and more power to him I say!

El Alamo

10-08-09, 17:11

Ricardo,

I will gladly write a few chica posts under your name.

The trade-off is that you will have to tone down the 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help' rhetoric.

Stan Da Man

10-08-09, 23:12

My favorite story comes from a brain surgeon who gets on the or speaker phone with a health carrier rep:

Hi this is dr X calling from why about your patient Z. You denied authorization for the stent I requestested. I am in the patients brain and your decision will likely result in mr z's death. I need your full name or employee # for my operative report. There maybe a homicide investigation and I want to have the facts straight. Would you clearly state the basis for the denial of the stent.

The speaker is the head of neurosurgical icu at a major teaching hospital. He was providing tactics to doctors for obtaining authorizations from health carriers. This has nothing to do with hating attorneys. Don't let the general feeling of hate and anger which permeates this thread, let you take your eye off the ball here. Do You really want to intentionally have the health insurance industry making life and death decisions with no controls nor way to use the courts to protect the rights of average people.

Stan look up the rules. You are an intelligent guy. I this your preference--what you want for your family? How about you Toyman?Bob, that's the problem with unsupported anecdotes -- they're unsupported. Sorry, Bob, but any surgeon that would do that while on the operating table would and should be disbarred. And, I don't believe a word of it is true, or at least that it's very much like the "war stories" that lawyers tell: They grow larger by the cocktail, and they always paint the telling lawyer in a favorable light. Kind of like the "fish stories" we've all heard. If unsupported anecdotes like these are the basis for flushing billions down the drain in the name of government mandated health care, then I'll take the current system. The same is true for the three anecdotes Obama cited in his speech on health care about a month back: On further scrutiny, they didn't hold up.

And, I appreciate the suggestion that I'm an intelligent guy, but apparently not so much. I don't know what "rules" you're talking about. If it's the idea that there are no "controls," the truth is there are many, many controls -- insurance regulators, lawyers, statutes, judges, verdicts and the free market.

Would the government do a better job at "controlling" things? You and I will never agree on this. One of the core principles of the founding fathers was a hearty distrust of government. I do not like citing to the founding fathers because this is so often abused. But, it is almost beyond debate that our Constitution was framed to give the federal government limited powers. At base, this is why there is such sharp disagreement over whether to let the government stick it's nose [further] into health care. Those in favor say the system is broken and something must be done. Those against say the system may not be perfect, but I definitely don't trust the government to fix it. The answer will come in two parts: Legislators will make a decision and then voters will have their say. These two parts will influence each other. Which side will prevail? Heck if I know. I just know what I'd prefer.

Back to Michael Moore for a second, the Wall Street Journal had a small piece on him today. Here's a brief review of his latest missive: "The movie is largely a paean to plaintiffs lawyers and unions, who alas depend on evil capitalism for their incomes." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574458943044664778.html

Hmmmm. It's almost like the author is reading the board. I made nearly the same point about Sicko just yesterday. All right you guys, fess up. Which one of you is writing for WSJ? Perhaps they'll be sampling this thread for their Letters to the Editor section next.

I saw Ricardo took a few thinly-veiled jabs at me yesterday and now the posts are gone. I wish they were still there. I actually dug up the Vanity Fair article he mentioned. It wasn't the current issue, and the stats were typically unsupported (e. G. Salaries of "major health care company CEOs," without an indication of what that means for comparison) But, that's what one would expect from Vanity Fair.

True, he's a gadfly, but sometimes everybody needs that. I understand that this is a monger board and that there must be some rules of decorum. And, I can only imagine that the task of editing things wouldn't be particularly pleasant. Perhaps we could just have an entirely separate thread where we could go to debate him? He's a bit over-the-top at times, but then, so am I.

Miami Bob

10-09-09, 02:08

I think that you are missing the point that I am making because of a re-conceived party-line. You are too bright to be caught up in a party line and you don't seem to be motivated by hate nor irrational fear.

The insurance industry is regulated in return then they are exempt from many anti-trust rules. I am talking about the average person's rights to receive medical care based upon need and reasonable medical necessity. What are you, you parents or other people that you care about--including your sugar baby-- to do when they have such care blocked by a high school grad with no medical training beyond medical terminology reading off of a computerized data based and possib lely not having any idea what the doictor is doing.

I attend a number of courses designed for doctors because of part of what I do to make a living. The story is a true story told by a senior medical school professor. Ask toymann about what happens on the operating room speaker phone when there is a surprise in the middle of a surgery.[I have had such speaker phone conversations to arrange scuba diving and fishing trips during a surgery] I have represented the institution where that professor works and have know him for over 20 years. I am not a plaintiff's malpractice atty and have said nothing in any of my recent posts about malpractice.

I suggest that you read the article that ricardo linked. Dialog between intelligent people with different points of view does not have to be entirely negative nor turn into name calling nor retreat into a party line without indepenent dialog. You don't operate this way generally. Many people who regularly post in this particular part of ap behave in a way that they would rarely, if ever, act in person. Jackson explains that is part of what happens with on line personas. He knows more about websites and knows more members than anyone else.

Thinking outside the box is how creative solutions evolve. Ricardo as a gad fly? Do any of the people on this particular forum really believe that there is only one legitimate point of view and everyone else a gadfly or stupid? This runs counter to everything that the usa is suposed to stand for and the brilliant system that our founding father created. Yes, our nation is split down the middle. It might not survive if people don't have dialog and take control of our system away from large scale lobbyists----and return to something which more closely resembles the vision of our founding fathers. I am paraphrasing john mccain who I consider a very brave and courageous man when not running for the presidency recently. Ricardo quoted ike-- a true republican and a freind of W's grandfather. Rather than calling him a gadfly --think out what he is saying before rejecting it. Large scale lobbying and the associated public relations is warping our nation.

I get food for thought from some of the guys who post here--I am particularly thinking of el alamo--I have been forced to re-think about what government fucks up based on his posts keeping me intellectually honest.

Jackson and I disaggree on just about everything about politics, but have a real over laps in values. His friendship also helps keeps me honest and does not allow me to take the facile approach of just going along with the middle range democrats without questioning all of the implications of what they say and do. This forum can and should be valuable to each of us who have so many differences except we enjoy playing together.

You may react that I am a nice guy, but a gullible idiot. I assure you that I am no idiot and both a businessman who has periodically made money doing business in argentina and makes his living involved with organized aggression. I also appreciate that I have enough conflict during my average workday, that I would rather avoid aggression and unnecessary conflict with people who I play and enjoy other aspects of life.

Does everyone who posts here have to be a hard right republican or libertarian or are other points of view also permitted?

Rock Harders

10-09-09, 07:51

El Alamo

10-09-09, 08:11

Rock Harders,

Could you please ask Obama to make a peace plan with Cuba. I want to visit.

Tiny12

10-09-09, 12:20

Mongers-

A big "FUCK YOU" to all the Rush Limbaugh / Jerry Fallwell / Burn and piss on the Constitution types who pollute this board with their Right Wing fascist inbred gunshow jesusfreak rhetoric. Other sitting US Presidents to win the award were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Sorte,

Rock Harders, aka Nostradamus JRThis has got me scratching my head. Obama has been in office a little over 8 months and he's awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. According to Rock Harders, so were Teddy Roosevelt, one of the biggest warmongers in U. S. History, and Woodrow Wilson, who got us into a stupid war.

The award was premature and a triumph of politics over merit.

"I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one"
Theodore Roosevelt, Nobel Peace Prize Recipient

Canitasguy

10-09-09, 12:54

I guess the Nobel Prize takes the sting out of the Olympics loss!

Canitasguy

10-09-09, 13:52

Herta Miller wins Literature Nobel. How priescient! She writes about Ceausescu and Communism.A quick Google search would have clarified this.

A German paper reports:

Müller was fired from her first job because she refused to work for Ceau şecu's secret police.

She refused to publish her first book because of attempts by the authorities to censor it.

She was refused permission to leave Rumania in 1985, then allowed to leave in 1987 after her searing criticism of Ceausescu's regime prompted many death threats from the secret police.

Stan Da Man

10-09-09, 14:27

Thinking outside the box is how creative solutions evolve. Ricardo as a gad fly? Do any of the people on this particular forum really believe that there is only one legitimate point of view and everyone else a gadfly or stupid? Bob, I think you have unintentionally misconstrued what "gadfly" means. It's certainly no insult and, if Ricardo understands its origination, he should consider it high praise.

It derives from Plato's Apology, and it's particularly apt here. You can read The Apology here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

In summary, Aristotle was accused of "corrupting the youth of Athens." This wasn't "corruption" in the sense that we commonly joke about the Greeks and young boys today. The charge was that he was teaching Athens' youth ideas that the government found dangerous. In Athens at the time, when someone was convicted of something, the State was allowed to propose a punishment and the accused was allowed to propose a punishment. Generally, this meant that the State would propose a harsh punishment, and the accused would propose some milder punishment. Then, the judges were to choose between the two.

In Socrates' case, the State proposed death. Socrates proposed that the State provide him with "dinner at the Prytaneum" (essentially, the public eating hall) for the rest of his life. In proposing this counter-punishment, his point was that he was doing the State a great service by educating its youth on alternative viewpoints, so he should be fed at the State's expense as his "punishment." By proposing this, he essentially ensured that the judges would choose death.

Later, Socrates is in prison and his supporters urge him to escape and go into exile. The State had left the jail cell doors unlocked, because they would rather see him go into exile than have to put him to death and deal with all the negative reaction. Socrates refuses and describes himself as a "gadfly," meaning someone who perpetually bothers the State with his so-called dangerous ideas. In modern philosophy, this is highly encouraged -- you can't have a one-sided debate. That's what gadfly means in this context, and I think it's particularly apt here, if Ricardo has been banished.

It's an all-time classic, if you like philosophy, and I won't spoil the ending in case you're inclined to read it. Sorry if you thought it was meant as an insult. It was actually intended as precisely the opposite.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled postings.

Jackson

10-09-09, 15:49

Mongers-

A big "FUCK YOU" to all the Rush Limbaugh / Jerry Fallwell / Burn and piss on the Constitution types who pollute this board with their Right Wing fascist inbred gunshow jesusfreak rhetoric. Other sitting US Presidents to win the award were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Sorte,

Rock Harders, aka Nostradamus JRRock,

I know that this is an unimportant consideration for Obama worshipers, but please tell me EXACTLY what did the Messiah do to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?

For example, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because he actually negotiated a lasting peace settlement between Israel and Egypt.

So what did Obama ACTUALLY do, besides kiss the correct European asses in all of his apology tours through the Continent?

Is there a Nobel Peace Prize for being a good political election campaigner?

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

10-09-09, 16:49

Rock,

I know that this is an unimportant consideration for Obama worshipers, but please tell me EXACTLY what did the Messiah do to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?

For example, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because he actually negotiated a lasting peace settlement between Israel and Egypt.

So what did Obama ACTUALLY do, besides kiss the correct European asses in all of his apology tours through the Continent?

Is there a Nobel Peace Prize for being a good political election campaigner?

Thanks,

JacksonI'm happy the guy won. Personally, I think he's done some great things internationally, most recently with Russia and Iran.

That said, this award really cheapens the Nobel Peace Prize a bit. The real question is not what Obama has done. It is: What did Obama do in his first 11 days in office, and also before he became President, to merit nomination?

Candidates had to be nominated by February 1, 2009. This from the Nobel website: "The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1."

So, if the committee is examining a "body" of work up to this deadline (and, I would submit, it would be unfair to consider things that happen after the deadline) then I think there's little basis for this award. Or, it's clear that they looked at the eight months after he took office, on January 20.

Again, I like a lot of what Obama has been doing internationally. If he had been nominated and won next year, it would make more sense. But, I don't think he did anything particularly noteworthy of a Nobel Peace Prize before he took office, and I can't fathom how his first 11 days in office -- when he did nothing internationally because he was dealing with the domestic financial malaise -- qualifies him for the award. So, that's why I say that bestowing this award on Obama, now, cheapens the award. It makes it appear to smack of politics, which the Nobel committee disavows. It's not that Obama is undeserving. It's just that he didn't deserve this one. Or, if he did deserve it based on only 11 days in office, then there really was a paucity of worthy candidates.

El Alamo

10-09-09, 16:56

Jackson,

Don't you get it? The whole thing is a joke. We are a lot closer to 'War is Peace', 'Freedom is Slavery' and 'Ignorance is Strength' than I ever thought we would be.

The world is at the mercy of governments, international bodies and delusional megalomaniacs who make Geroge Orwell's 1984 look sane.

President Obama is not the culprit here. Obama is merely riding the surf of insanity.

P.S. I hope giving Obama the Nobel Peace Price will prove to be light years better than giving Jimmy 'shit for brains' Carter that award. Personally, I think Carter should have won the Nobel Prize for 'village idiot' every year for the last 35 years

SteveC

10-09-09, 17:20

When I saw this on the news this morning, still half asleep, I thought it was a spoof report. But, like Stan says, he's done some good work with Russia and Iran. The missile plans in eastern europe were incredibly provocative, and the arms control agreement with Russia could produce results. Plus the US-Russian-French offer to Iran to process its uranium is a creative attempt to break the nuclear impasse with Tehran.

I'd say its too early for the award, but as I read somewhere today.

"This Nobel peace prize is a down-payment on work yet to be done. It is an act of faith, based on the fact that Obama is making the right noises and seems to know what he is doing; and on the fact that, compared to his predecessor, he already looks like a master-craftsman".

And as for Obama making "apology tours", it wasn't perceived like that in europe. Building bridges with allies after 8 years of burning them is probably a good diplomatic move.

Canitasguy

10-09-09, 17:26

A cursory review of their post-WW2 history shows Norwegians have a "thing" about peace. Their brutal occupation by the Nazis had a profound effect on their collective national psyche, which led to both a national commitment to promote international peace and to maintaining military forces large enough to defend the country, which are under firm civilian control.

By awarding Obama this year's prize the Committee was following past precedent. The Prize has frequently been awarded with an eye to nudging world events toward peace, not just for finalized deeds.

For example, in 1996, the prize was shared by two Indonesians, pushing for East Timorese independence from Indonesia. That award helped lead to Indonesia's pullout in 1999. The 1994 prize to Rabin, Peres, and Arafat was awarded before they completed the Oslo Accords that held a promise of peace, but eventually broke down.

The Prize Committee is a bipartisan group of Norwegian political leaders - liberal and conservative.

The members include Thorbjørn Jagland, former Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs and President of the parliament; Kaci Kullmann, former Chairman of the Conservative Party; Sissel Marie Rønbeck, former Cabinet Minister; Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, senior adviser to the Progress Party; and Ågot Valle, former President of the Parliament.

Announcing the award, Jagland said he thinks the Nobel prize can spur peace, rather than simply reward its achievement. He noted the prize will put pressure on Obama to deliver on his promises.

He stated: "we are awarding the prize for what he has done in the previous year" - mentioning Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world, restarting the Mideast peace negotiations, and working through international institutions to promote peace and nuclear disarmament.

Any smart businessman understands good will is a major asset for any organization. Good will towards the U. S. Will be increased by this award, which reinforces the results of the recent global survey that showed the U. S. Voters, by electing Obama, have remade America's international image and now it is the most admired nation in the world. The improved good will can bring tangible results over time.

Stan is right. This is a good thing in a time when there few good things to celebrate.

El Alamo

10-09-09, 17:39

"This Nobel peace prize is a down-payment on work yet to be done. It is an act of faith, based on the fact that Obama is making the right noises and seems to know what he is doing; and on the fact that, compared to his predecessor, he already looks like a master-craftsman".

What a great concept. I'm going to my bank today to finance that 500 foot yacht I've had my eye on.

As a down payment I think the fact that I have been thinking of getting a job should be enough.

SteveC

10-09-09, 18:05

"This Nobel peace prize is a down-payment on work yet to be done. It is an act of faith, based on the fact that Obama is making the right noises and seems to know what he is doing; and on the fact that,.

What a great concept. I'm going to my bank today to finance that 500 foot yacht I've had my eye on.

As a down payment I think the fact that I have been thinking of getting a job should be enough.True, that first part does sound a bit lame. But "compared to his predecessor, he already looks like a master-craftsman" is so true. You can't imagine, cannot conceive, how the rest of the world wanted a change. Maybe you don't give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks, we can go suck on it, but we do exist, and if you want to make diplomatic progress (maybe you don't?) Obama did more in a week than your guy did in 8 years.

El Alamo

10-09-09, 18:43

Oh, now I get it.

We are in a popularity contest. It is important that the rest of the world love us.

No problem, we can win that contest.

First, open our borders. Let anyone enter our country - immediate citizenship, free medical care and welfare checks are a given.

Second, put 'cap and trade' restrictions on our industries without requiring other industrial powers to do the same.

Eliminate all import duties on products entering the United States while paying the ridiculous import duties other countries put on our products.

Increase foreign aid until the citizens of Somalia are the recipients of more federal money per capita than our citizens.

Refuse to conduct any unilateral military activities until we have been given permission by Castro, Chavez and Osama Ben Ladin.

I feel so much better now that the rest of the world is going to love us.

SteveC

10-09-09, 18:59

El Alamo,

Paranoia "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others".

Having better diplomatic relations has little or nothing to do with a popularity contest. Its actually in your long term interests, economically and militarily to have better relations with the rest of the world. And please don't be under the delusion that everyone outside the USA wants to live there. We don't!

El Alamo

10-09-09, 19:03

SteveC.

It was supposed to be funny.

I live in Paraguay. I couldn't care less about any of this stuff.

SteveC

10-09-09, 19:10

Sorry, I didn't get the joke. Just sounded like plenty of the right wing / Fux News style views we get on here. I've had a stressful week. Maybe I need a trip out of town this long weekend.

Schmoj

10-09-09, 19:34

Sorry, I didn't get the joke. Just sounded like plenty of the right wing / Fux News style views we get on here. I've had a stressful week. Maybe I need a trip out of town this long weekend.SteveC, I think you understood the true intent of Alamo's post. Sarcasm and hyperbole are the norm around these parts.

Despite what you read on this thread our foreign image is important and has more to do with rhetoric than actual policy or action. In that, I think Obama has done a lot as you said before.

Alamo, for someone who doesn't care, you sure seem to care a lot.:-)

I don't give a shit either, I live in Argentina and have health care here. But in reality I do care because I might actually have to return someday. But hopefully not.

SteveC

10-09-09, 20:04

SteveC, I think you understood the true intent of Alamo's post. Sarcasm and hyperbole are the norm around these parts.You're right. "Sorry. I didn't get the joke." My attempt at sarcasm. I do have friends from the USA who aren't so arrogant that they're not concerned about their image abroad. Not all democrats either.

Jackson

10-09-09, 21:22

SteveC

10-09-09, 21:44

Greetings everyone,

So why is it that the neo-libs expect us to apologize for acting in our own self interests?

The fact is that EVERY country in the world makes their decisions based on their own self-interests, not on who they like.

It makes NO difference if they like us or not, because they make decisions regarding their country based on their own self-interests, period.

Personally, I can only think of one occassion in modern history in which any country did something for the USA because they "liked" us: In 1886 the French people gave us the Statue of Liberty.

Sorry! The Status of Liberty was funded by private donations, and thus is was a gift from the French people, not the French government.

Thanks,

JacksonJackson,

Not sure if I'm being paranoid, but if you're referring to my recent posts, I did make the distinction between being 'liked' and having good diplomatic relations. They're not the same thing. And for some US citizens to be concerned that their country was an international pariah, as was the USA during many of the Bush years, it's a reasonable stance.

Schmoj

10-09-09, 22:25

The fact is that EVERY country in the world makes their decisions based on their own self-interests, not on who they like.

It makes NO difference if they like us or not, because they make decisions regarding their country based on their own self-interests, period.This would make sense if the US made decisions that were entirely within its own borders. The problem is that the US's "interests" frequently extend far beyond its borders.

Canitasguy

10-09-09, 23:16

The fact is that EVERY country in the world makes their decisions based on their own self-interests, not on who they like.Jackson's statement that nations only have interests, not allies or friends certainly reflects the behavior of most nations throughout history. However, it begs the question, who defines those interests and do those operational definitions really define the best interests of the nation as a whole. It is silent on the question as to whether as nations pursue their self-defined interests they need to consider moral or ethical constraints.

Again throughout history, those nations that have dominated world affairs defined their interests in expansionary terms that served the narrow business interests of their ruling oligarchs, often to the detriment of the greater interests of their citizenry and with little regard for morality.

The U. S. Was no exception. Just take a look at the history of U. S. Latin American relations. Cheap bananas and tomatoes hardly justify being in bed with murderous dictators.

A new century has dawned. It prompts one to look back at the sorry history of U. S. Foreign policy during the later half of the last century. That review raises questions about whether the creation of an economy based on far-flung military adventurism and globalizing international finance to expand and secure wealth for a narrow sliver of the citizenry can be sustained.

Can we continue to be involved in wars in countries hardly worthy of that designation and with all our power, might and money still be unable to "win" anything? Can we spend $50 billion dollars a year on nuclear arms when we have enough to destroy the world a dozens times, encourage some nations to increase their nuclear arsenals, while threatening war against other nations who just want to join the club? The insanity of it should be clear, but then much of the world is insane.

Obama by raising questions about whether there is a better way has sparked the hopes of much of the world and the respect of the Nobel Committee.

We may find out he is naïve and nothing can tame the forces of the status quo who prefer endless wars, bloated military spending, the sacrifice of thousands of America's young soldiers year after year and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in countries we choose to occupy, as we pursue our self-defined "interests."

A very likely scenario is the U. S. Falls of its own weight, which one assumes is not in it's best interest.

Jackson

10-10-09, 00:22

Jackson,

Not sure if I'm being paranoid, but if you're referring to my recent posts, I did make the distinction between being 'liked' and having good diplomatic relations. They're not the same thing. And for some US citizens to be concerned that their country was an international pariah, as was the USA during many of the Bush years, it's a reasonable stance.Hi SC,

You are obviously correct that we should aspire to achieve good diplomatic relations throughout the world. My point is that we shouldn't distort our own decision process by factoring in some sort of "will they like us" quotient under the presumption that other countries will reciprocate, because they most certainly do not.

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

10-10-09, 00:42

I agree the award seems premature. The intention is clearly to influence and help Obama to stay strong in the direction he is going; and it appears the committee thought that was sufficient justification. We shall see how it plays out.

Esten

10-10-09, 01:09

If you haven't yet, look up Obama's acceptance speech. It's quite good.

Hunt99

10-10-09, 11:17

"compared to his predecessor, he already looks like a master-craftsman" Unlike so many other cynical people, I can point to a recent episode that Mr. Obama has been instrumental in creating peace.

Mr. Obama refuses to send reinforcements to the US Army in Afghanistan. The Taliban attack and nearly overwhelm Camp Keating, an American base in Kamdesh Province. Then, Taliban take over the Camp Keating and control the entire province when the base is evacuated. The outnumbered, overwhelmed American Army turns tail and flees, and the Taliban revel in their strategic victory.

Voila! Mr. Obama has created peace for the people of Kamdesh! The Norwegians love it! Give that man an award!

El Alamo

10-10-09, 12:30

Damman

10-10-09, 13:30

Unlike so many other cynical people, I can point to a recent episode that Mr. Obama has been instrumental in creating peace.

Mr. Obama refuses to send reinforcements to the US Army in Afghanistan. The Taliban attack and nearly overwhelm Camp Keating, an American base in Kamdesh Province. Then, Taliban take over the Camp Keating and control the entire province when the base is evacuated. The outnumbered, overwhelmed American Army turns tail and flees, and the Taliban revel in their strategic victory.

Voila! Mr. Obama has created peace for the people of Kamdesh! The Norwegians love it! Give that man an award!Camp Keating was an indefensible position. In a fucking remote valley at the base of a mountain range: dah.

Canitasguy

10-10-09, 13:31

This Sunday Fox news, is going to air a very important documentary about Barack Obama.You told everyone to watch last Sunday! Is this a new weekly fiction series?

Do you get any compensation for your promotional work? Maybe you should!

Hunt99

10-10-09, 16:50

Camp Keating was an indefensible position. In a fucking remote valley at the base of a mountain range: dah.I am sure that the Taliban will have no problem defending it against Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

El Queso

10-10-09, 18:50

I thought the Nobel Peace prize was awarded to people who had accomplished something, myself. There's no way that Obama won the prize based on anything he's actually done.

I read an article online from the NY Daily News that mentioned the awarding of the prize has drawn a lof of general criticism, but that many heads of state around the world are congratulating him.

Including mention of Fidel Castro's take on the matter (quote fromt eh article): "Cuba's Castro called it a "positive step" but said the prize is more a repudiation of President Bush than a recognition of anything Obama has done."

And what Michael Steel had to say (another article quote): "But Republican National Committee head Michael Steele is bristling with outrage, saying in a letter that Obama won the prize "for awesomeness.""

I think that both comments say it all. The Nobel Peace prize is pretty much crap at this point.

According to NobelPrizes.Com, the reason Obama won the prize was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Well, he hasn't actually accomplished anything except show that the US is more willing to talk than threaten. We don't even know how that policy will actually play out. But nothing has really been accomplished than to say the US is now "more friendly."

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore won the peace prize (as I'm sure many know) "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

I ask myself what exactly a scientific / engineering / social subject has to do with peace? Sure, if they could somehow keep it from happening or keeping humans from influencing what is actually a natural process, some future conflicts may not occur - but really? The Nobel Peace prize for that?

Gato Hunter

10-10-09, 18:59

The nobel prize was first started after the guy that invented TNT died. It was in his will. I guess he felt guilty for bombs blowing up people.

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

The peace prize has had controversy before.

El Queso

10-10-09, 19:31

I read an interesting article about the comments that Chief Justice of the CA supreme court had to say related to the California state government:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11calif.html

As bad as the more indirect democracy that we have at the federal and every other state level, California's much more direct democracy has driven the state to its knees.

Direct proof that given too much power, the people, in sufficient numbers, will vote in anything that "sounds good" but just can't work.

Our foundng fathers were very wise.

Canitasguy

10-10-09, 20:55

I studied Roman history in high school (back then in my school it was mandatory as was Latin) Reading the recent comments here it sent me back to the debates the Romans had about their Empire.

The Roman imperialists said "Oderint dum metuant." That means "let them hate so long as they fear."

The Roman Historian Tacitus, countered that with the sentiment with a quote from a British general who said of the Romans: "Auferre, trucidare, rapere falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." That translates "to ravage, to kill, to steal under false pretenses they call empire and when they make a desert and they call it peace."

Things haven't changed very much for a lot of people even after two millennia. There are clearly a few fans of American imperialism here.

Damman

10-10-09, 21:36

I am sure that the Taliban will have no problem defending it against Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.Taliban just want to defend their poppy fields. They have a bumper crop this year. Hell, leave them alone and they will kill each other off.

I picked a hell of a time in life to quit sniffing glue.

Be good

Gato Hunter

10-10-09, 23:30

The US should legalize personal consumption of drugs, tax the production and sales.

The drug war is over in a year.

There is big money in law enforcement and corrections.

Rev BS

10-11-09, 07:02

This Sunday Fox news, is going to air a very important documentary about Barack Obama,

Sunday night at 8:00 PM central / 9 PM Eastern. The report will go back to Obama's earlier days, showing even then his close ties to radical Marxist professors, friends, spiritual advisers, etc.

It will also detail his ties to Rev. Wright for 20+ yrs. How he was participating with this man, and not for the reasons he states!

The report has uncovered more of Obama's radical past, and we will see things that no one in the media is willing to put out there. It will be a segment to remember.

Mark your calendar and pass this on to everyone you know: Sunday night, 8 PM. CT; 9 PM ET.

Democrat or Republican, this report will open your eyes to how YOUR country is being sold down the road to Totalitarian Socialism.

If you care about the direction of our country, pass this.

Notice on to everyone you know.A reliable source told me that Obama's father was a KGB operative who was ordered to sired a sleeper agent who could ascend to the presidency. However, the Nobel Peace Prize was never included in the planning.

Hunt99

10-11-09, 10:33

I picked a hell of a time in life to quit sniffing glue.

I am deeply sorry that an American company produced the toxic waste that you innocently inhaled. I apologize for the selfishness and greed that caused you to needlessly suffer. A new sense of responsibility and openmindedness in my country will ensure that such dark days of the past will never recur. Join me on a quest to remedy the abuses that come from unchecked commerce and destruction of the environment.

Damman

10-11-09, 12:42

I am deeply sorry that an American company produced the toxic waste that you innocently inhaled. I apologize for the selfishness and greed that caused you to needlessly suffer. A new sense of responsibility and openmindedness in my country will ensure that such dark days of the past will never recur. Join me on a quest to remedy the abuses that come from unchecked commerce and destruction of the environment.Ya sir mast ha. It is the second coming. By the way, need a little help with this credit-card thing. It was the glue.

SteveC

10-11-09, 19:36

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

In the 1970's the prediction was that we were entering a new ice age. Wrong.

Lately the prediction has been than CO2 was causing global warming. Wrong.

I don't think there is anything sinister behind the global warming alarmists, nor do I think Al Gore is especially stupid for believing in global warming. The advocates of global warming simply made a weather prediction and their forecast was wrong.If you are seriously interested in this subject, a good source of information is http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229.

To summarise the causes: Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accummulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that normally would exit into outer space.

I'm not getting into an argument about this, just making available to anyone interested an excellent source which articulates the problem far better than I ever could.

El Alamo

10-11-09, 19:57

Yes Steve.

Good site. But where is the global warming? It doesn't exist.

Where are the rising oceans? There are none.

How long will it be before these idiots give up this lost cause.

P.S. I can almost predict fatso Gore's response when the hoax of man made global warming is obvious to all.. I think he will say something like 'well, it sounded like a good idea at the time'

SteveC

10-11-09, 20:26

I'm not getting into an argument about this.And this is the last time I'm taking the bait!

There's so much information out there, you can do the research yourself. But in answer to your last question, have a look at this.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html

And just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't necessarily make them an idiot!

El Alamo

10-11-09, 20:39

Steve.

Sorry if I was abrasive. That was not my intent. And if you want to call global warming skeptics idiots, I will not be offended. Who knows, you might be right.

Personally, I couldn't care less about manmade global warming other than it is probably not a good thing if it is occurring.

I am just continually amused how this idea of man made global warming won't die.

But one thing is for sure. Time will tell.

Had we believed fatso Gore, hurricanes should have destroyed most of the Eastern United States,, tornados should have wiped out most midwestern cities in the United States and Florida should now be under water.

It is just so fucking funny that people believe this bullshit.

SteveC

10-11-09, 20:46

And this is the last time I'm taking the bait!This is the last time. I'll be losing all credibility at this rate. OK, I didn't have any to start with.

I think the point about this is that Florida is not going to disappear in the next decade, we'll just have to wait a bit longer for that. But, if we don't take this seriously, we won't be able to stop it. And don't worry about being abraisive, I've got a thick skin. Just don't call me fatso.

Steve

El Queso

10-11-09, 22:02

Just to have some comment related to the possible (probable? Myth of global warming, as another possibility.

I've been hearing about global warming since the 70's. They have yet to hit any prediction that was presented as far as I know. That flies in the face of science, actually. They need to revise theories based on scientific data; not on trying to fit scientific data to their theories (those who are theorizing the end of civilization if we don't "do something")

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1&page=1

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-warming-myth-will-media-report-it

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

The second article's title ("NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It?") makes me wonder: could it possibly be that man-made global warming is becoming a multi-billion dollar a year industry between big grants that concerned governments and "greenies" have a vested interest in perpetuating?

Governments and large organizations that deal with a large number of different issues (like the news media, for example, as well) as a whole, in my opinion, are generally too "stupid" by definition to understand the science behind what is being presented by those who look to slant the data in their favor.

As the article about the NASA report (and many others on the web) state, a lot of these changes are very cyclical, over decades. The Earth has been MUCH warmer in the past than it is now; includng during human times, but when the population of the Earth was measured in the tens or hundreds of millions, rather than billions. Humans didn't have the technology to affect the climate then (very questionable as to whether what we are contributing now even really shows up at all in the overall grand scheme of things) and yet there are ruins that can be found in places, like off the coast of Florida, South America and in places in the Mediteranean Sea, where whole cities are underwater because the shore line used to be a whole lot lower than it is today, all around the world.

People who build on low coasts are asking for problems even if there weren't rising sea levels (man-made or natural)

Just another panic for people to lose their attention to, which should be focused on more serious issues.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

El Alamo

10-11-09, 22:24

El Queso.

You and I are in the same boat. The climate always goes through warming cycles and cooling cycles. After billions of years of these warming and cooling cycles we have finally figured out that greedy, capitalist bastards are to blame for these cycles.

I don't know how this could become any more insane.

P.S. much to the dismay of the man made global warming fanatics, it appears we are now entering a cooling cycle.

El Queso

10-11-09, 22:46

Amen brutha Alamo!

BTW - here's very interesting 20/20 video on YouTube, with John Stossel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCJ-UhZFT4

This issue has indeed become a religion. Al Gore with his movie that won him an Oscar and a Nobel price has kids and their parents scared shitless. Scientists who say anything against the "closed debate" are said to be obstructing solutions and are on the take by some "big-business" conspiracy. They receive death threats from "believers."

Things like this that get perpetuated on huge levels, are serious problems. There are not enough people who can investigate beyond what the fear mongers have to say and then process that data critically. Fear mongers use that human weakness to put the damndest chains around our ankles. Drugs wars and AIDS are two other fallacies that fear mongers use to suck so much time and energy out of the world.

This whole global warming thing has been an annoyance up until now, but with the world in the condition it's in economically, the last thing we need to do is saddle ourselves with a bunch of regulations to bring down productivity and worsen the problem because we can't see the forest for the tress.

Canitasguy

10-11-09, 23:07

I am glad I can turn here for all the answers!

BadMan

10-11-09, 23:49

El Queso

10-12-09, 15:30

I guess this includes the war on terror and the rising tide of illegal immigrants too huh? Or I guess those are real because you believe in em aye?

No need to answer, the question was rhetorical, as I assume the answer would be as well.

Regards,

BM.

Btw. Check your pm boxYou might be surprised how I feel about those two issues if you think the question is rhetorical, dude.

I actually don't like the war on terror because it has eroded freedoms significantly - it has given the fear mongers a slippery slope toward authoritarianism - look at the Patriot Act (which I hope dies little by little instead of being renewed as parts expire) Big Brother coming around, with the permission of the people who have given up their freedoms because they were scared. Not that terrorists aren't a true threat - they are. But we don't have to give up our rights a little at a time to combat it. I'd rather see every citizen armed in case they came across some jackass terrorists instead of acting like sheep and allowing the government to keep expanding their power.:)

Illegal immigration? I'm from Texas and I've worked with Mexicans just about all my life. For the most part, illegal Mexicans (who I worked with in my younger days as a ditch digger, then a jobsite superintendent) are hard working fuckers and send a ton of money back home to their poor families. They often live in small, cramped, cheap places with a lot of people, to save money. They do the jobs most Americans wouldn't want to get their hands dirty with. They are a lot like the Paraguayans here in Argentina, whom I also admire.

I wish they were legal. I wish the US government would wake up and institute a huge guest worker program, and allow them to take less than minimum wage as guest workers - if they want to work for less, that's their business. The money they get paid is obviously good enough as an illegal or they wouldn't be there to begin with (the "market", in other words)

Many (most? Are actually paying taxes - they have fake SS cards, often a number that is a real number from a citizen, because businesses have to have a way to account for their money, at least on big scales, like in construction. We always had issues with the IRS related to one of our laborers having a SSN that was confused with some other tax payer, often in some other part of the country. The guys would just disappear, and go work on another crew somewhere with another SSN.

Get rid of all that stupid crap and institute a guest worker program! And it's not "taking advantage" of Mexicans per se (in a bad way, in other words) - it's a win-win situation. They need the work and we need cheap labor. People need to get past this "guilt" thing about paying workers less money. Few realize that the illegals come to the States because, even with lower money than everyone else is geting paid IN THE US, it's a fuckpot-full better than what they can make in their own country.

But BadMan, those two items are social issues, which are not clear-cut issues, depending on your social belief system.

Global warming is a different animal completely. That is science (or should be) And what's happening is that non-scientists like Gore are taking bad information and telling the country and the world that the data they see means something that it really doesn't.

There was a really, really important piece in that 20/20 piece I linked to that Mr. Gore didn't show his audiences, but Mr Stossel brought up. He shows a graph with two lines - one is the temperature of the Earth over 600,000 years, and the other is the level of CO2 over that same time period. Over that time, there are spikes in temperatures, and along with that, amazingly enough, are spikes in the CO2 level. The CO2 line is at the top of the chart, separated from the temperature levels which are at the bottom of the chart, separated from one another.

Gore points to that in his movie and says (paraphrased) "see, it's obvious that spikes in CO2 levels are affecting temperatures on Earth."

Mr Stossel, however, "magically" moves the CO2 graph over the top of that of the temperature graph (superimposed) where you can actually see the relationship visually - over 600,000 years, a period of a couple of decades to a couple of hundred years, it's hard to tell when the graphs are separated what the true relationship is. And guess the fuck what? It turns out that the CO2 levels FOLLOWED a temperature rise when they are superimposed, they didn't CREATE the temperature rise (which would require that the levels PRECEED the temperature rises) And that makes good scientific sense because CO2 will be released from the ocean, for example, as the world warms.

And Al Gore scares kids with the ocean levels rising FEET (as much 20 feet he says) but he also doesn't say that we are talking inches over decades and that 20 feet would be if global warming continued at the current rate for a couple of HUNDRED years.

The same with the temperature rise. Everyone agrees that the temperature is rising, that IS a scientific fact which just about every scientist who studies this WILL agree to. The average temperature worldwide has risen.6 degrees fahrenheit over 100 YEARS! It's not an emergency. We're not all about to die in 20 years if "something doesn't happen." IN FACT, no one really knows what a temeprature rise means, but even if it's a problem, it's not humans who are causing the rise in temerature.

The fact that Mr Gore owns a company that will trade CO2 credits, one of the idiotic ways people have come up with to reduce carbon emissions (which will never actually do anything) doesn't at all mean that he has some other motive for making people think that he's the savior of the planet from those evil corporations who are trying to kill us all!

Stan Da Man

10-12-09, 16:18

Illegal immigration? I'm from Texas and I've worked with Mexicans just about all my life. For the most part, illegal Mexicans (who I worked with in my younger days as a ditch digger, then a jobsite superintendent) are hard working fuckers and send a ton of money back home to their poor families. They often live in small, cramped, cheap places with a lot of people, to save money. They do the jobs most Americans wouldn't want to get their hands dirty with. They are a lot like the Paraguayans here in Argentina, whom I also admire.How cool! I used to work in Tyler, Texas as a ditch digger for a construction company just after high school. We were putting up different hotels back then, circa 1984. I can attest to your observations: The hardest working guys on the construction site were the illegal Mexican guys. They would bring these guys in as brick layers and rock cutters for the vanity landscaping stones. Watching those guys work was amazing. They were the only guys more disliked on the construction site than my pals and I (Yanks who went to Texas looking for work) They weren't disliked for the reason most would think, I. E. Because they were Mexicans or "illegals." They were disliked for the same reason we were: They were taking the locals' jobs.

What part of Texas did you work in, and about when? We may have run across each other. I was with "C" Construction Company back then. I still remember my old boss: Milton Black. Great guy. It was minimum wage work but 80-100 hours a week. Even at minimum wage, we still did OK. There was no time to spend it. Plus, Tyler was in a dry county. I still have great memories of East Texas from back then. Heck, since it was in a dry county, I still have memories from back then.

Damman

10-12-09, 17:48

Though you do not need my kudos Stan and El Queso concerning immigrant workers, could not agree more. Hardest of workers and deserve a better deal. They get ripped off from both sides of the fence. In another life, did a little county time and ended up working in the fields with many of these so called illegals picking asparagus: work / release. Received quite an education and learned a real respect for these people. What they have to endure was an eye opener. When I look back, it was a fun time, if you have to do some time. There was a lot of asparagus picking and a lot of screwing going on in them thar fields. I needed to be reminded of those experiences. Life is crazy.

Thanks

Jackson

10-12-09, 18:17

I can attest to your observations: The hardest working guys on the construction site were the illegal Mexican guys.Hi Guys,

I was in the home building business in Florida for more than 20 years, and the industry there certainly had it's share of hard-working Mexican and Central American workers.

However, I didn't observe any difference in the working habits between the legal Mexican and Central American workers and the illegal Mexican and Central American workers, so I don't understand your point.

Are you suggesting that those who are here illegally work harder than those who are here legally? Is your admiration based on their legal status?

Thanks,

Jackson.

==============================================

For the record, I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.

- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

El Queso

10-12-09, 21:31

What part of Texas did you work in, and about when? We may have run across each other.It was in Houston, various years.

I started out in highschool, actually, digging ditches over summers with a buddy of mine whose father owned the construction company - Simonsen Construction. I worked in South Houston preparing the forms and ground and such for concrete pours for underground poured-in-place drainage systems. This would have been 1978 & 1979 during the summers. I worked the job to raise money for my first car and then have enough money for insurance and gas. I really enjoyed that job - I had a couple of years of Spanish in school and at lunch time my buddy and I would sit with the Mexicans and BS about life, pussy, you name it.

After that, in the mid-eighties I went to work for a precast concrete company (we erected parking garages and other commercial buildings with our precast product) I started out as a general go-fer, then a truck driver, then a finisher on the job site. At the plant and on the site about 1/2 to 2/3 of the workers were illegals. Later, I became a draftsman and designed a lot of the buildings we were putting up, then became a superintendent and managed the shipping, erection, and finishing crews. That lasted until about '92 when I changed careers again.

El Queso

10-12-09, 21:41

However, I didn't observe any difference in the working habits between the legal Mexican and Central American workers and the illegal Mexican and Central American workers, so I don't understand your point.

Are you suggesting that those who are here illegally work harder than those who are here legally? Is your admiration based on their legal status?Actually, my point was that our immigration policies are too strict and we have no ability to allow a large number of cheap laborers into the country legally. I was saying that the illegal immigrants now actually do provide a service, many (if not most) of them are being taxed as it is (as opposed to many erroneous comments by many fear mongers to the opposite) and they are hard working to boot.

If we had a guest worker program of some sort, we would be able to let these people cross the border legally, they would be documented, and we could ensure that they would be easier to track down if we needed to.

Of course, I do believe that they have no right to be in our country illegally - but human nature tells us that they will find a way to do it with or without the government's consent (like drugs) so why not acknowlege this and do something real about it rather than build walls around our country?

As far as people like that taking local jobs - very few of the American Citizens I know are willing to do the kind of labor, for the kind of pay, that illegal AND legal immigrants do. If this labor source did not exist, prces on various items would likely go up as we had to pay the workers more.

I don't know what the answer is exactly, I just feel sympathy for people who want to work and are seeking a market where they can do so. Again, it's a win-win situation so let's figure out how to do it legally and let everyone win above-board.

Stan Da Man

10-12-09, 22:39

Are you suggesting that those who are here illegally work harder than those who are here legally? Is your admiration based on their legal status?

Thanks,

Jackson.Yep, that would be accurate from my observations. Now, truth be told, I didn't go around checking these guys' green card status, so I'm not positive they were all illegal. It's my assumption based on talking to a few of them, and from the fact that none of them spoke a whit of English. They all hung together.

But, yes, the illegals seemed to work much harder than the legals. I'm not comparing them to just Mexicans, though, or even Spanish speaking folks. My non-scientific observation was based on this: When I was down there working, it was during a construction boom. The locals knew they could go just about anywhere and get work, so they tended to take it for granted. They didn't seem to care much about whether their employer thought they were doing a good job or not. The illegals, on the other hand, either didn't know that jobs were easy to come by or, for them, jobs weren't easy to come by. Thus, they busted their balls to make sure no one could question their work ethic. There was a palpable difference. The same might have been true of illegal Irish or Estonian workers, but they didn't happen to work at the construction sites I worked at.

Again, I don't pretend that this is a scientific survey. It's just what I saw.

El Alamo

10-13-09, 09:44

STEVE WYNN: 'Gov't never increased standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history'.

Do I ever miss Ricardo's ''I'm from the government, I'm here to help' bullshit

El Queso

10-13-09, 22:44

I read this article about the Nobel jury defending their position on Obama's prize:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irLyPrFK_rtRwMOsfjRBFjGDVZCgD9BAFHMO0

A quote from Jagland, the committee chairman:

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year. Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

And yet, earlier in the article:

"To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree. He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said."

So even though Alfred Nobel says it should be awarded for deeds done in the PREVIOUS year, Obama gets it awarded for things he did AFTER he was nominated, a week or two into his presidency, and before the results of his first attempts at changing things later in his presidency have even produced results - except for getting him awarded the Nobel prize.

They mention in the article that Obama seemed unhappy at receiving the award, saying that they knew this might make his job harder.

I say that if Obama knew what he was doing, he would have rejected the award.

Jackson

10-27-09, 23:47

Argentina is blessed with a wonderful public healthcare system that is free to all regardless of immigration status. When you go for your analysis, they will ask you to bring your own used soda bottle with cap to use as a container for your urine sample. There are many, many cats walking around uncontrolled throughout the public hospitals. You will likely wait in line for an extended period of time along with all the other Bolivians, Peruvians, Paraguayans, and Argentine villa dwellers. Even better, you will be treated by a doctor who earns about $500 USD per month or less in a facility that has not been updated since the 1950's.

Suerte,

Rock HardersAnd you support the idea of government-run public health care for the USA?

Wild Walleye

10-28-09, 04:22

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said."So he is being compensated with this gift for relieving tension. However, it turns out that he didn't even provide the services for which he was compensated. He's like a bait and switch puta.

Rock Harders

10-28-09, 04:58

Jackson,

Yes, I absolutely do support having a state run healthcare system that operates parallel to a private healthcare system in the United States. The healthcare system provided to the US military free of charge would be the obvious standard that should be expected in any US state run system and not what exists in Argentina. I do not think that anyone would logically argue that the US is not capable of putting together a state run healthcare system on par with those that exist in the UK, France, Germany, or Canada.

Thanks,

Rock Harders

Canitasguy

10-28-09, 20:45

"The Public Plan health reform is a ''mirage' according to Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post."This thing is going to work!" according to Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, quoted in yesterday's New York Times!

Choose your economist and take your chances!

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html

BadMan

10-29-09, 10:52

Real tragic.

Republicans haven't been able to profit politically from the economic gloom.

Schmoj

10-29-09, 11:53

But Republicans haven't been able to profit politically from the economic gloom, according to a new Wall Street Journal / NBC News poll.Tell that to John McCain.

Althebama

10-29-09, 17:02

Today's BA Herald, p8, by Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post.I never send opinions to people I do not know, but reading Argentine Private the last few months and seeing the crap that passes for insight on the politics thread, I can't help myself.

I have a great time when I am in BA. I came last April when I needed a break from Birmingham after I quit the worst job I ever had with the ArmorGroup in Afghanistan.

Armor had the security contract at the US Embassy. I left after two weeks because I could see the company was a bunch of corrupt assholes with pals in the Bush camp, who hired dumb and crazy kids, didn't supervise anything and put the embassy at risk every day. It was the most disgusting fuck-up I ever saw. I knew the kid who blew the whistle and caused a huge scandal.

My time there taught me all I need to know about what all the grunts know is hopeless. But the generals don't give a shit, as long as they get their medals. Today generals don't fight, they sit in offices, give orders and get kids killed or fucked up permanently. It's sick. They are armchair warriors, like the know-nothings Cheney and McCain who spout horse shit about Afghanistan and just want us to stay at war forever so their pals can make trillions.

Anyone with a brain knows that criminal conspiracy - the Bush Administration - left Obama an impossible problem. He's fucked no matter what he decides. If you think Bush didn't do that on purpose, come to Birmingham and I will sell you a plantation cheap.

If you want to read another opinion on health care, check out Krugman's piece in the New York Times a few days ago. He says point blank _ "This thing is going to work." Krugman, who has a PhD in Economics from MIT and won a Nobel Prize in economics, is a little more credible than Samuelson, a writer with an undergraduate degree in government from Harvard who is a well-known conservative shill. Here's a link:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1

As for the Wall Street Journal dissing the recovery I love it came out on the day we learn the economy grew faster than expected last quarter thanks to the stimulus.

You guys should stick to chasing poontang rather than pissing on Obama. Having lived in the deep south all my life I can see where that instinct comes from. My sweet old Grandma used to say "I don''t hate the coloreds, it's just we all got along better when they stayed in their place."

Damman

10-29-09, 19:04

I never send opinions to people I do not know, but reading Argentine Private the last few months and seeing the crap that passes for insight on the politics thread, I can't help myself.

I have a great time when I am in BA. I came last April when I needed a break from Birmingham after I quit the worst job I ever had with the ArmorGroup in Afghanistan.

Armor had the security contract at the US Embassy. I left after two weeks because I could see the company was a bunch of corrupt assholes with pals in the Bush camp, who hired dumb and crazy kids, didn't supervise anything and put the embassy at risk every day. It was the most disgusting fuck-up I ever saw. I knew the kid who blew the whistle and caused a huge scandal.

My time there taught me all I need to know about what all the grunts know is hopeless. But the generals don't give a shit, as long as they get their medals. Today generals don't fight, they sit in offices, give orders and get kids killed or fucked up permanently. It's sick. They are armchair warriors, like the know-nothings Cheney and McCain who spout horse shit about Afghanistan and just want us to stay at war forever so their pals can make trillions.

Anyone with a brain knows that criminal conspiracy - the Bush Administration - left Obama an impossible problem. He's fucked no matter what he decides. If you think Bush didn't do that on purpose, come to Birmingham and I will sell you a plantation cheap.

If you want to read another opinion on health care, check out Krugman's piece in the New York Times a few days ago. He says point blank _ "This thing is going to work." Krugman, who has a PhD in Economics from MIT and won a Nobel Prize in economics, is a little more credible than Samuelson, a writer with an undergraduate degree in government from Harvard who is a well-known conservative shill. Here's a link:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1

As for the Wall Street Journal dissing the recovery I love it came out on the day we learn the economy grew faster than expected last quarter thanks to the stimulus.

You guys should stick to chasing poontang rather than pissing on Obama. Having lived in the deep south all my life I can see where that instinct comes from. My sweet old Grandma used to say "I don''t hate the coloreds, it's just we all got along better when they stayed in their place."Young man, do not cloud the issues with facts, please.

Canitasguy

10-30-09, 19:53

A while back there were posts here cheering when the military booted the elected President out of the country.

Now the President was no saint and was infected by the Latin leader's wish to stay in office forever, no matter the rules. It must be something in the drinking water.

Still when the corporate interests who didn't like his left-wing policies to were able to get the army to give him the boot - no matter what the rules, a crisis ensued. And some AR guys who are a bit partial to corporate / military rule said yippy.

A few months later after heavy negotiating led by Arias (that other Nobel Peace Prize winner) and the Organization of American States with support from Obama - a peaceful end to the crisis has been achieved.

No bloodshed, no tearing up the constitution, no re-emergence of another military dictatorship!

Diplomacy - nice idea I'd say!

Canitasguy

10-30-09, 19:57

I never send opinions to people I do not know, but reading Argentine Private the last few months and seeing the crap that passes for insight on the politics thread, I can't help myself.

I have a great time when I am in BA. I came last April when I needed a break from Birmingham after I quit the worst job I ever had with the ArmorGroup in Afghanistan.

Armor had the security contract at the US Embassy. I left after two weeks because I could see the company was a bunch of corrupt assholes with pals in the Bush camp, who hired dumb and crazy kids, didn't supervise anything and put the embassy at risk every day. It was the most disgusting fuck-up I ever saw. I knew the kid who blew the whistle and caused a huge scandal.

My time there taught me all I need to know about what all the grunts know is hopeless. But the generals don't give a shit, as long as they get their medals. Today generals don't fight, they sit in offices, give orders and get kids killed or fucked up permanently. It's sick. They are armchair warriors, like the know-nothings Cheney and McCain who spout horse shit about Afghanistan and just want us to stay at war forever so their pals can make trillions.

Anyone with a brain knows that criminal conspiracy - the Bush Administration - left Obama an impossible problem. He's fucked no matter what he decides. If you think Bush didn't do that on purpose, come to Birmingham and I will sell you a plantation cheap.

If you want to read another opinion on health care, check out Krugman's piece in the New York Times a few days ago. He says point blank _ "This thing is going to work." Krugman, who has a PhD in Economics from MIT and won a Nobel Prize in economics, is a little more credible than Samuelson, a writer with an undergraduate degree in government from Harvard who is a well-known conservative shill. Here's a link:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/o...ugman.html?_r=1

As for the Wall Street Journal dissing the recovery I love it came out on the day we learn the economy grew faster than expected last quarter thanks to the stimulus.

You guys should stick to chasing poontang rather than pissing on Obama. Having lived in the deep south all my life I can see where that instinct comes from. My sweet old Grandma used to say "I don''t hate the coloreds, it's just we all got along better when they stayed in their place."Alabama isn't so dumb and redneck after all!

Cowpie

10-30-09, 21:11

I wonder how many of the 650,000 jobs were union jobs, my guess at least 70% (cops, teaches, state employees)

Consider this: the folks he's targeting to pay for his socialist agenda is the evil white man.

The only CHANGE the "FOLKS" will see is the 2 nickels left in their pockets after this piece of shit completes his mission of running (redistribution) the US in the ground.

Canitasguy

10-30-09, 23:28

HBO is going to air a very important documentary about Barack Obama, Sunday at 9 PM EST.

Barack Obama made history when he was elected President. This documentary gives the inside scoop on the Obama campaign, focusing on the candidate, family members, staffers and voters who helped change history.

The film covers how the campaign dealt with all the horse shit that was thrown at him such as bogus claims of ties to radical Marxist professors, corrupt friends, racist spiritual advisers, etc. It presents things that Fox News is unwilling to put out there on his spirituality, deep family values, proud patriotism and quick sense of self-deprecating humor. It will be a segment to remember.

Mark your calendar and pass this on to everyone you know: HBO, Sunday night, 9 PM ET.

Democrat or Republican, this report will open your eyes to how your country lived up to its promise and put aside racial prejudice and hatred.

If you are proud about our country choosing a better direction as it rebuked the Republican's sad record of war, incompetence and failed economic policies, pass this notice on to everyone you know.

(THIS IS NOT A HIT JOB - SORRY SID!

Althebama

10-30-09, 23:38

SteveC

10-31-09, 16:28

Cowpie

11-01-09, 15:45

Hey Stevie the union boy,

If only the American education system (run by unions) taught people to think and reason in a coherent manner, the world would be a better place.

I'm disappointed in your responce Stevie, this was an opportunity for you to put on display your union training. Instead you took the easy way, which makes you look like the fool you are.

I suggest you continue to hone your limited skills, maybe it will pay big dividends (taxable of course) when OBAMA owns your sorry ass and leaves you without your 2 nicklels.

Gato Hunter

11-01-09, 16:21

Really it is.

SteveC

11-01-09, 16:29

Cowpie

11-02-09, 01:59

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was deleted because the content of the report was largely argumentative. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!

Canitasguy

11-03-09, 18:19

The Wall Street Journal is calling Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page Government takeover of healthcare the "worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced."The newspaper whose very name establishes it as the official pimp for the greedy fucks who tanked the global economy is hardly a credible source on matters of economics or politics or threats to the American middle class!

Sinistra

11-03-09, 20:38

I think we should rename this thread "Sidney's Teaparty." Rant! Rant! Rant! Rant! Rant!

Oy.

Canitasguy

11-03-09, 23:38

I think we should rename this thread "Sidney's Teaparty." Rant! Rant! Rant! Rant! Rant!

Oy.In support of Sidney Peron's hallucinations, the Generalisimo has "disappeared" the dissenters. He's been seen in his black-on-black uniform, dropping posts out of planes over the River Platte!

Sinistra

11-04-09, 12:05

I'm pretty much a libertarian (think right of center economics, left of center on social issues) but this right-wing foaming is just nauseating and preposterous. I'm embarrassed by what has happened to the Republican party. Limbaugh, Beck and company make me sick of the party that I once proudly supported. But here's some general observations.

1. Stop this bullsh*t blaming Obama for deficits. I HATE deficits, but the theory is run a deficits during periods of recession to stimulate growth and run a surplus during periods of growth to even out the cycle. Bush ran us into a deep, deep hole during periods of growth with his dumb-ass war and his failure to tax sufficiently to cover costs. It was irresponsible pandering to his base. Now that we have to deficit-spend to recover from the greatest economic crisis of our lifetimes (on whose watch?) You're blaming Obama?

2. You suddenly CARE if big brother is watching? WTF? Who the hell rammed the Patriot Act down everyone's throat saying that those people who objected to it were giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

3. There's a reason why less than 20% of the American public now consider themselves Republicans. Don't read anything into these elections. Foaming at the mouth Tea-Douchebags are much more motivated to vote in an off-year election than normal, civilized people. Check out the percentage of the electorate that cast a vote and then come tell me that this was some great referendum.

Sinistra

11-04-09, 16:03

I have to say, I mostly ignore these areas of the board thinking it a waste of time to get involved. But hell, I've been feeling pissy lately, so I thought I'd take it all out on Sid. Mind you, I think he's full of crap most of the time, I just don't bother to get involved.

Sid's points are after the bullets. I reply below.

•*I don't listen to Limbaugh, Beck, or others. But, it seems the lefties are at least as bad!

No, no they aren't. They aren't as loud, they aren't as bigoted, they aren't as holier than thou and they don't have a "this is MY party, if you don't like it LEAVE attitude. They don't practice slash and burn politics. Birthers. BIRTHERS for God's sake. Of those less than 20% of Americans who are Republicans that remain, most of them believe that Obama is from Kenya, even though there's not a shred of real evidence backing it up. Why? Because they want to believe it. You should hear what these bigots say. Don't even go there with the moral equivalence argument. "The other side is just as bad" is a crap argument used by those with nothing better in their arsenal. Not even close to being as bad, Sid. Not even close.

• Obama deficits dwarf Bush deficits. First, the bailouts started under Bush. Second, if you subtract out the stupid spending on a useless war, subtracted out interest on debt that Bush accumulated, it would be a hell of a lot more manageable. Plus, if Bush had been reasonable, we would have accumulated some surpluses in order to pay for this. Don't count bailouts, the war and interest payments against Obama. NOT his fault.

• Obomination's pandering is greater!

I don't know what this means. It's just an unsubstantiated ad hominem argument that you just threw out there. It sounds nice, but it's meaningless.

•*Obama has accelerated the problems with a totally incompetent recovery program.

Incompetent? Based upon what criteria? The old out of touch idiots on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal who are mad that they're getting their tax breaks taken away? The vast majority of economist think Obama is doing a reasonable job. His choices ranged from crappy to cataclysmic. Could he have handled it better? Sure. But he's a reasonable / rational person, unlike the idiots running the Republican party who pushed reasonable people with views like mine out. Remember, my economics are right of center, but I find myself unable to have a conversation with people on the far right who dominate the Republican party. At least I can have a discussion with Democrats.

As far as what you said about privacy and the elections, I don't disagree with you. Still, the Republicans are a mess and it's getting worse for them, not better. They are way worse off than the Democrats were during Reagan's time.

El Queso

11-05-09, 00:43

•*I don't listen to Limbaugh, Beck, or others. But, it seems the lefties are at least as bad!

No, no they aren't. They aren't as loud, they aren't as bigoted, they aren't as holier than thou and they don't have a "this is MY party, if you don't like it LEAVE attitude.Actually, having been married to a far-left wingnut for 20 years, and being privy to many of the idiocies that she and her political activists were involved in, I have to completely disagree with your statement on this one, Sinistra. The far left is every bit as nuts (bigotted in their way, and CERTAINLY holier than thou!) and extreme and intolerant as the far right.

It's the far right who is killing the Republican party, I think. As it is the far left who is posing problems related to compromise even within their own ranks related to the healthcare bill and producing a certain climate of intolerance of their own.

My ex-wife HATED EVERYONE that was associated with the Republican party, particularly George Bush (I must include myself in there as well) Do prayer meetings and seances, held at multiple locations around the country at the same time, seeking the death of George Bush, for example, count as extreme? Castigating members of their own party who would even dream of trying to compromise with those "greedy bastards who only want to grab everything not nailed down for themselves"? Many examples.

Please.

BTW, I agree with about everything else you said in response to Sid.

Seems to me the problem we have in the US is that a two-party system tries to put too many different paradigms into one bag. There are some supposed core beliefs that each party has, but it's all the extraneous beliefs that get in the way of compromise and therefore cause a lot of strife within each party. It causes civil war amongst their own members, and extends further in strife between the two parties themselves.

If we had multiple parties, things would be a little less combative I think. Maybe. Certainly, I would have more of a hope, also as a Libertarian, of finding people who believe the same way as I do without having to tie myself to a party who is trying to tell a woman what she can do with her body, tell me I can't smoke pot, and make me feel like a second class citizen because I'm not a Christian, all because I want as small a government as possible and don't think that I should support people who don't have a desire to work their asses off like way I do to advance myself.

Sinistra

11-05-09, 09:08

The far left is every bit as nuts (bigotted in their way, and CERTAINLY holier than thou! And extreme and intolerant as the far right.You are absolutely correct, but you're also wrong. Believe me, I've wanted choke the sh#t out of my share of in-your-face lefties. They too are annoying and self-righteous and condescending. But here are a few of points you should consider.

1. At least they aren't stupid. They are extremely annoying and highly drownable, but they usually have reasonably well-formed opinions, and their a**holeness derives from a genuine desire to make the world a better place. I mean come on, how can you argue with everyone having access to health care being a bad idea in theory? I certainly don't want to pay for it, and I think there are definitely downsides. But in a perfect world, why should it be that who lives and who dies is decided by how much money they make? It's one thing to say that it's okay that rich people get to ride around in yachts and have country club memberships, it's another to say poor people should be subjected to a life of intolerable pain, suffering and early death just because they weren't smart or lucky enough to make a lot of money.

2. They aren't nearly as racist and bigoted. For every one left-winger marching for gay rights, there are three right-wing nutbags who vomit religious intolerance or toss around the N word when not in polite company. There are literally thousands of videos on Youtube recording conversations with people at these Teabag events and the things they say are right out of the KKK handbook. This is not to say that they are all bigots, but there's a huge percentage of Limbaugh's and Beck's audience that are.

3. They don't maintain such a prominent position in the political discourse. Certainly the loonies on the left are there and to some extent they drive the political agenda, but Democrats these days are far more centrist and it's obvious. The Republican party is held hostage to Limbaugh and Beck. Politicians can't say anything bad about them without a huge backlash. Republicans who go against them are heckled in cruel ways and thrown to the dogs. You ask a member of Congress from a strong Republican district a simple question "Do you believe that Obama was born in the United States" and they REFUSE to answer. It's just ridiculous.

I believe in smaller government, less taxation and rugged individualism. Who the HELL do I support?

El Alamo

11-05-09, 09:47

Just saw Fox News for the first time in months. Highly entertaining.

However, their adulation for a strong military and using that military to wreck havoc in far away places was hard to take. A hot girl group wearing miniskirts singing about the honor of dying for causes that make no sense was too much.

As far as I can tell, we would be much better off had we never gone to Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Furthermore, had we not gone we would have avoided the senseless killing and maiming of millions of soldiers and civilians.

A strong military is a good idea but carelessly using that military is not a good idea.

P.S. a guest appearance by Ollie North, who seemed to be saying that we needed to be involved in more wars, didn´t help matters.

Gato Hunter

11-05-09, 11:27

Just post the link and not your copy and paste spam bullshit, or better yet form an opinion on your own and type it out.

Wild Walleye

11-05-09, 13:24

I will wade back in here to take issue on a couple of points (with all due respect of course):

I don't listen to Limbaugh, Beck, or others. But, it seems the lefties are at least as bad!

No, no they aren't. They aren't as loud, they aren't as bigoted, they aren't as holier than thou and they don't have a "this is MY party, if you don't like it LEAVE attitude. They don't practice slash and burn politics. Birthers. BIRTHERS for God's sake. Of those less than 20% of Americans who are Republicans that remain, most of them believe that Obama is from Kenya, even though there's not a shred of real evidence backing it up. Why? Because they want to believe it. You should hear what these bigots say. Don't even go there with the moral equivalence argument. "The other side is just as bad" is a crap argument used by those with nothing better in their arsenal. Not even close to being as bad, Sid. Not even close.I am a conservative. Because of that, I have been called a bigot, homophobe, sexist and much more. I do not project my religious beliefs on others nor do I know many conservatives who do. I have never understood how standing for smaller government and greater personal responsibility and liberty could lead someone to make such assumptions about me. I have discovered that these misconceptions are based on deep-seeded bigotry imbued through the core of most liberals.

You speak of what you do not know. While I do not know Rush personally (I did met him once back in '92) I have probably listened to his show a little more than you. He is neither a racist nor a bigot. He is not holier than thou, although I can see how one might get that impression. In fact, he is impressively not so as a recovering addict (often times people in recovery become very preachy about it and other issues) He does not pretend to be a Big Tent" republican, never has, never will. He is a conservative (think Goldwater and Reagan) with a focus on smaller government, less government interference in the private sector and more personal freedom and responsibility and that the constitution is the law of the land. He is pro-life.

He is opinionated and believes strongly that he is right. He supports candidates that agree with him. What is wrong that, I do the same thing on a smaller scale each time I enter the voting booth.

Rush is not a birther, nor am I. However, I can understand why birthers have the questions that they do. First, they suspect BHO is what he has always been and that he has been influenced by the company that he has kept throughout his life (Leftists, Marxists, Communists, Maoists, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, etc) and therefore cannot be trusted on any issue. Birthers accurately claim that BHO has never released a copy of his birth certificate while the BHO campaign and White House counter that the certificate of live birth (obtained four days after his birth) is sufficient. While, I do not know the merits of either side, I do feel that the WH continues to feed this controversy by not providing the long-form birth certificate.

The left has always been much louder during my lifetime, just not through the medium of talk radio. The conservative protests that have popped up this year are the first of my memory.

But he's a reasonable / rational person, unlike the idiots running the Republican party who pushed reasonable people with views like mine out. Remember, my economics are right of center, but I find myself unable to have a conversation with people on the far right who dominate the Republican party. At least I can have a discussion with Democrats.Who pushed you out? McCain? That right-wing bastard! The republican party has been dominated by Washington insiders peddling Democrat-Lite candidates. The conservatives that I know embrace folks who are for small government and greater personal responsibility and freedom, regardless of standing on social issues. Most of my close friends are left-leaning or outright liberals. I love them and respect them. However, I am not going to change my mind and believe in big government or that the Constitution should be subordinated to the wishes of any president (R or D)

Still, the Republicans are a mess and it's getting worse for them, not better. They are way worse off than the Democrats were during Reagan's time.Excellent, you stated an opinion in the form of an opinion. This is the fun part. It is what debate is all about. I suspect that you are wrong. However, time will tell which of us is correct.

Suerte

Jackson

11-05-09, 13:29

The Republican party is held hostage to Limbaugh and Beck. Politicians can't say anything bad about them without a huge backlash. Republicans who go against them are heckled in cruel ways and thrown to the dogs.Sinistra,

With all due respect, that is as inaccurate as claiming that Al Franken controls the Democrats.

Besides, if the Liberals / Democrat's ideas are as overwhelmingly righteous as they believe, then it shouldn't make any difference what a couple of talking heads have to say, right?

I mean, don't you believe that the American people have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas?

You ask a member of Congress from a strong Republican district a simple question "Do you believe that Obama was born in the United States" and they REFUSE to answer. It's just ridiculous.

I believe in smaller government, less taxation and rugged individualism. Who the HELL do I support?Of course, if you ask Obama a simple question "Will you show me a copy of your Certificate of Live Birth", he will REFUSE to answer. Now that's ridiculous.

Wild Walleye

11-05-09, 13:51

. But they usually have reasonably well-formed opinions, and their a**holeness derives from a genuine desire to make the world a better place.The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If the USA is bankrupted by "healthcare reform" (which is a total misnomer) then it's OK because it was done with good intentions in mind.

If another 10 million US jobs are lost due to the added expense of Cap and Trade legislation (which is based entirely on JUNK SCIENCE) and the US sinks into the Great Depression Part Deux, it's OK because it was done with good intentions in mind.

I respectfully disagree. Good intentions on issues such as these cannot replace being right (as in correct, not conservative)

I mean come on, how can you argue with everyone having access to health care being a bad idea in theory? I certainly don't want to pay for it, and I think there are definitely downsides. But in a perfect world, why should it be that who lives and who dies is decided by how much money they make? It's one thing to say that it's okay that rich people get to ride around in yachts and have country club memberships, it's another to say poor people should be subjected to a life of intolerable pain, suffering and early death just because they weren't smart or lucky enough to make a lot of money.Ah hah! You have put your finger on it. That is exactly the tangled web that is being sewn and has been sewn for so many years on this issue. It is a false argument that is meant to make you feel that way and support the left and feel disgust for the right (who by the way want to make old people eat dog food and kill all the gays)

If this healthcare debate was about insuring the uninsured, wouldn't that be the focus of the plan? Why then is the government trying to take over 1/6th of the US economy? The Pelosi bill is estimated at $2T in cost. It would be cheaper to just take the government checkbook down to the Aetna (or pick another carrier) office and buy coverage for all the uninsured Americans who either cannot afford or cannot get healthcare? From my perspective, alarm bells are ringing when the need 1,900 pages (before amendments) $2T and lots of shenanigans to get this "reform" through.

Oh yea, might I also point out that we don't have $2T.

They aren't nearly as racist and bigoted. For every one left-winger marching for gay rights, there are three right-wing nutbags who vomit religious intolerance or toss around the N word when not in polite company.You are making this up. Please feel free to provide some data.

There are literally thousands of videos on Youtube recording conversations with people at these Teabag events and the things they say are right out of the KKK handbook. This is not to say that they are all bigots, but there's a huge percentage of Limbaugh's and Beck's audience that are.Thousands of racists proclamations at Tea Parties? Oh my!

With millions of attendees, I do not doubt that there were some bad apples amongst them (the same is true of any group that large regardless of political affiliation) However, if this were true, they would be on the evening news every night until every last one was played ad nauseam.

They don't maintain such a prominent position in the political discourse.What? Ever heard of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, MSNBC (oh yea, I never heard of that one either) etc? I think the left has had a pretty prominent position in the dialogue.

The Republican party is held hostage to Limbaugh and Beck. Politicians can't say anything bad about them without a huge backlash. Republicans who go against them are heckled in cruel ways and thrown to the dogs.Of course this is true. Both Limbaugh and Beck were such strong reporters of that right-winger McCain. Oops, they both despise him (as a politician) Then how on earth did McCain get the nomination?

I believe in smaller government, less taxation and rugged individualism. Who the HELL do I support?Vote for Pedro

Rock Harders

11-05-09, 13:53

Jackson,

I think it has been well established since the Constitution was signed in 1789 that the American people in fact DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas. That is why the Electoral College was added to the document by Thomas Jefferson and why Senators were originally not directly elected by popular vote. The "american people" (US citizens) are in fact some of the least informed, least inquisitive, and most ignorant people of any modern industrialized country. Yes there is of course the 1% of the population who know what is going on, control everything and essentially manipulate the "american people" for their own economic benefit. But the true representation of the "american people" is the NASCAR-loving, Bud Light drinking nitwit who cares about / thinks about little more than his job at Wal-Mart and how much horsepower his truck has. These people DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas. These are the George W. Bush voters.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Wild Walleye

11-05-09, 13:54

I believe in smaller government, less taxation and rugged individualism. Who the HELL do I support?How about Sarah Palin?

Wild Walleye

11-05-09, 13:57

Jthe true representation of the "american people" is the NASCAR-loving, Bud Light drinking nitwit who cares about / thinks about little more than his job at Wal-Mart and how much horsepower his truck has. These people DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas.Thank you for making my point (from my penultimate post):

"I have never understood how standing for smaller government and greater personal responsibility and liberty could lead someone to make such assumptions about me. I have discovered that these misconceptions are based on deep-seeded bigotry imbued through the core of most liberals."

Stan Da Man

11-05-09, 16:14

Jackson-

I think it has been well established since the Constitution was signed in 1789 that the American people in fact DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas. That is why the Electoral College was added to the document by Thomas Jefferson and why Senators were originally not directly elected by popular vote. The "american people" (US citizens) are in fact some of the least informed, least inquisitive, and most ignorant people of any modern industrialized country. Yes there is of course the 1% of the population who know what is going on, control everything and essentially manipulate the "american people" for their own economic benefit. But the true representation of the "american people" is the NASCAR-loving, Bud Light drinking nitwit who cares about / thinks about little more than his job at Wal-Mart and how much horsepower his truck has. These people DO NOT have the intelligence to distinguish between good and bad ideas. These are the George W. Bush voters.

Suerte,

Rock Harders*Sigh* This is confirmation that everything the right says about the "liberal elite" is true. Here's an even better summary. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511250528884932.html

I'll save you the trouble: It can't be accurate because it comes from the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

Still, it's a very apt summary of how most people believe the left looks at citizens. And, unfortunately, it is true. The poor sheep. Thank goodness we have well-meaning politicians to take care of us.

Guestrex

11-05-09, 17:37

Wait, are you saying Thomas Jefferson was part of the liberal elite?

Stan Da Man

11-05-09, 19:46

Wait, are you saying Thomas Jefferson was part of the liberal elite?Yes and no. Jefferson was part of the "liberal elite" of his time, but the comment about why the electoral college was created is off the mark. It was a compromise between two camps -- one of which wanted pure popular vote to elect presidents, and the other of which wanted state legislatures to elect the president. Jefferson's idea wasn't that people were too stupid to vote "correctly." Instead, it was that states would all elect regional candidates for president because there was very limited ability to communicate nationally at the time -- there was no internet or telephones, no national newspapers and very little means to disseminate information to the entire country. Regional voting would then mean that the most populous state would always win. So, the issue wasn't whether people were too "stupid" to make the correct pick, as the post suggested. It was that there was little means to get them information on which they could make an informed decision, so regional candidates would always prevail. The electoral college could eliminate that. There were other reasons, as well, but the idea wasn't that a majority of people are too stupid to have a direct vote.

El Alamo

11-06-09, 06:56

Al ´the greedy capitalist` Gore was on TV last night. What a fruit loop.

The biggest waster of energy in the state of Tennessee was making the outlandish claim that changing the type of light bulbs we use, the appliances we use and the energy we use would create jobs.

In realty, doing the things fatso Gore advocates would simply be an added expense to families and businesses and would result in less jobs and less prosperity.

I am surprised Gore doesn't come up with some other worthless make work project such as forcing all cars to be manufactured with built in energy efficient hot tubs. That would really produce a lot of new jobs. We would be a nation of hot tub cars but a nation without jobs or disposible income.

All this based on man made global warming which is 110% junk science.

P.S. maybe I am missing something. Maybe Gore is right. If we changed the way we produce and use energy we probably would use a lot less energy.

We would use a lot less energy because with Gore´s outrageous energy costs businesses would cease to exist and most families, except Al Gore´s family, couldn´t afford to turn on even a light bulb.

Wild Walleye

11-06-09, 13:29

If you look at certain structures or procedures developed by our founders, such as the electoral college, solely from a 2009 perspective, you will miss a significant amount of relevant information that they considered and you may very well misread their intentions.

Whilst today the US is a federalist constitutional republic, it was not always so. After independence from England was claimed (7/4/1776) the country was coalesced together as a confederation with a weak federal government, as stipulated in the Articles of Confederation enacted in 1777. The country operated under the AoC until 1789, when president George Washington and the first congress took office. The Constitution had been ratified in 1788. Article II of the Constitution establishes the Electoral College (since amended, in 1804 by the 12th Amendment) The Bill of Rights came along in 1791 (the BoR is comprised of the first ten amendments to the Constitution) The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in December of 1791 and stipulates that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government and not explicitly prohibited to the states are to reside with the states or the people. This is embodiment of "States' Rights."

The electoral college was a protection against the national direct popular vote, but not the stupidity of the American public. As one can see, from 'recent' election results (1978, 1992, 1996 and 2008) the electoral college is certainly no protection form the stupidity of the American voter. Further, it is a protection of the states and the individuals voting in less populated states lest they be completely drowned out by the popular votes of urbanized areas in more populated states.

At the time of the founding, a dominant federal government was explicitly not wanted. The evolution from the AoC to the Constitution was fraught with efforts and mechanisms (see X Amendment citation above) to limit federal power and protect both the states and the individual. The post-Civil War expansion of federal powers, the New Deal, the current Obama / Reid / Pelosi power grab and numerous judicial fiats have eroded many of those safeguards. Unfortunately, it seems that we are destined to continue to destroy the Constitution and the rule of law.

Note to lefties: Please feel free to call me a racist for citing the Tenth Amendment. Obviously, I am speaking in code to distribute a much more sinister and nefarious message to the ignorant masses in order to foment discontent and focus their anger on minorities so as to distract them from discovering the man behind the curtain.

QuakHunter

11-06-09, 20:59

Wait, are you saying Thomas Jefferson was part of the liberal elite?Not sure of the liberal elite, but he was certainly a progressive early monger. Sally Hemings? Boo-Yah!

Keep hope alive!

Esten

11-07-09, 02:26

Damm Bush! It is all his fault! Not too far from the truth actually. Bush and his administration who over two terms pretty much did nothing to prevent the actions which led to the current economic downturn. Look up Bush and plunge protection team, great reading.

Obama and the current administration are now "cleaning up" and working to get the economy back on solid footing. Yes you have read this before, but these are the facts.

Esten

11-07-09, 15:11

A plan with some teeth, heaven forbid! Not much different from how tax evasion is handled.

That's the whole premise of the reform. Everyone contributes, everyone benefits.

If you google this stuff you'll see much of it is fear-mongering posted on right wing blogs.

Beavis

11-07-09, 19:13

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam going into downtown Chicago. Nothing is moving north or south.

Suddenly a man knocks on his window. The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What happened, what's the hold Up?"

"Terrorists have kidnapped Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are asking for a $10 Million ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire.

We are going from car to car, taking up a collection."

The driver asks, "About, how much is everyone giving?"

"About a gallon."

El Alamo

11-08-09, 09:55

I see that some health care plan passed the House of Representatives. I am not sure what that means. However, anything would be better than the health care system we have now.

We have access to the best health care in the world but we sure do not have the best health care system in the world.

We are spending twice as much per capita as the next most expensive health care system, without any evidence that our health care system is as good as other systems.

Basically we are paying $500 for a bottle of wine that turns out to be a bottle of Boones Farm Apple Wine.

I can say this because I am retired and don't have to convince the American public that they should pay $2,000,000.00 for liver transplants - for incorrigible alcoholics.

Jazzplayer

11-09-09, 03:51

I see that some health care plan passed the House of Representatives bottle of Boones Farm Apple Wine.

I can say this because I am retired and don't have to convince the American public that they should pay $2,000,000.00 for liver transplants - for incorrigible alcoholics.Wow, you know your liquor history. Apple, Cherry, Strawberry. Amazing recall in the fotifies wine category. BW, mu sister was model in most all the early adds for that product. A brush with trivia is upon me.

Que tegas una buen dia.

Chau,

Jazz /

Punter 127

11-10-09, 00:02

To bail out the banks' poor bets on Dot-Com companies and Latin America in 2001-2002, Greenspan purposely ignited a credit bubble that led to the mother of all housing crashes.

In response to the housing bust, the Fed refused to let failed banks go out of business and is attempting to force another credit bubble. However, banks aren't lending (except in China where a suggestion to lend is not taken lightly)

All the Fed (central bankers in general) and Congress have done is create yet another asset bubble bailing out the wealthy. Meanwhile consumer debt still acts as a drag, unemployment is high and rising because sloshing money around at banks cannot possibly create any jobs (and it hasn't) and the pool of real savings that it does take to create jobs has been exhausted. Meanwhile taxes are soaring which puts still more pressure on job losses, foreclosures and defaults.

Bernanke, Obama, Congress, the Fed, and Central Bankers worldwide have all failed to learn anything from:

1) The Great Depression.

2) Two Lost Decades In Japan.

3) The Dot-Com Bubble.

4) The Housing Bubble.

Instead they follow unwise and disproved Keynesian and Monetarist tactics that have failed to accomplish anything but create bigger bubbles. However, this is the end of the line. Housing was the bubble of last resort, nothing can come close to the number of jobs created by the global housing bubble.

Further attempts to reflate will do nothing but create a currency crisis, crash the economy, and add to future liabilities that cannot be paid back. A global economic crisis is coming. When and how it manifests itself is all that remains to be seen.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock I'm very concerned that Mish is right on the mark here.

Obama should have stuck to community organizing, because he doesn’t know diddley about economics. Obama and company haven’t got a clue where to go from here.

Obama and his ilk are finding out the hard way that government doesn’t have an endless supply of money.

They can point the finger at Bush and make excuses all they want, but the American people want results not excuses, and the bottom line is 10.2% of the work force doesn’t have any “change” left.