American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Sidney,

Ford borrowed money from PRIVATE equity lenders because they were deemed to have the credit-worthiness back in 2006 to obtain such loans. This loan was taken before the current meltdown because Ford knew back in 2006 that its then business plan was unsustainable and it needed to obtain financing to pay for a huge corporate reorganization. THAT is the hallmark of competent management. GM and Chrysler drove themselves into the ground in the face of bankruptcy and are / were such basket cases that no private equity firms would lend them any money (in Chrysler's case, the private equity firm that owned them had access to billions of dollars and refused to invest even one dollar more in one of its own holdings) so the lender of last resort was the GOVERNMENT (which IMO should have just let them both die) The bottom line is that FORD makes excellent cars that will sell well in the years to come in the US market and will be profitable by 2011. Ford's stock will be worth $30 USD / share again within the next 48 months.

Economies move in cycles and the big boys with competent management can make it through the lean times. ALL the major automakers faced a huge decline in sales (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, GM, Chrysler) but only GM and Chrysler went under. GM and Chrysler died because of GROSS MISMANAGEMENT and for no other reason.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Jackson-

Please start a new thread titled "US Economy" so I do not have to post in the "American politics during the Obama Administration" thread.

Thanks,

Rock Harders

Rock Harders,

I must be in the twilight zone, because I agree with 95% of what you've been posting in this thread recently. I'd argue though that GM and Chrysler didn't die because of gross mismanagement and for no other reason. The unions had a lot to do with it, although I guess you can blame management too for compensation, pension and medical costs around $80 per hour worked. And for a system where management and workers are at each others throats instead of working as a team.

Sidney is right, the immediate downfall was the downturn in sales. As you noted, all the auto manufacturers were hit. Even Toyota took almost a 50% hit to sales. If you've got leverage and high fixed costs, that's a potential recipe for disaster. I guess you and he agree that's where Ford did well, by building up a big cash cushion before the downturn.

But GM had $25 billion in cash and $44 billion in borrowings at year end 2007, going into the downturn. That's a lot of cash. Looking back at historical interest rates, at year end 2007, the Fed Funds rate was 4.25% and GM's bonds were yielding about 11%. So by maintaining a $25 billion cash cushion insted of paying off debt, GM might have been spending about (11%-4.25%) x 25 billion, or $1.7 billion per year extra in net interest expense. Yields on Ford debt and GM debt at 12/31/07 were pretty similar, around 11% or 12%. So, in other words, I don't think it's fair to say that GM management was incompetent because they didn't hold enough cash. Or that GM couldn't refinance at affordable interest rates while Ford could. But to be honest, unlike you, I have no idea what private equity firms were willing to do for Ford vs. GM and Chrysler in 2006 or 2007.

I took a look at Ford about 6 months ago, and do not believe they're in as good of shape as you do. I'd be very reluctant to buy the shares.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Jackson-

Please start a new thread titled "US Economy" so I do not have to post in the "American politics during the Obama Administration" thread.

Thanks,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE][blue]Hey Rock,

I don't blame you for wanting to distance the Messiah from the economy that he is "managing".

Anyway, as you requested...

[url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5644[/url]

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]

RH:

Change the name, put lipstick on the pig, whatever you want, this mess is BHO's not matter how you slice it.

He inherited a ~$400B deficit, which he immediately more than quadrupled to what CBO expects to be $1.85T (that's 1.85 trillion (I. E. 1,850 billion dollars or AR$7,030,000,000,000 or 28 billion hours of completo with BBBJ at Junin 1633) within his first six months. At two loads per hour, that's 18 million gallons of cum. That's one hell of a bukake film.

The spending has all been political paybacks and payoffs. So don't bother getting into specifics, which are apparently a weak spot for lefties (I've known this for a while)

Bob, you had me at hello. At least I knew I loved you when I discovered the gem at the other end of the telephone number you gave me. Some of my best friends are extreme liberals. We can debate and at the end of the day, we can agree to disagree and part friends. I am passionate about my beliefs and I know when I am right. I do not hold against my friends who do not agree (I write it off as due to some form of mental defect--I'm joking)

You know that I am: 1) a smart ass prick (one of my more endearing qualities--perhaps my only one) 2) in possession of an IQ barely north of room temperature, 3) an individual that practices compassion in my daily life, and 4) a conservative that believes in smaller government and more personal responsibility (err. Excluding certain endeavors) I will also gladly buy you one drink for each time I offended your liberal sensitivities (provided you return the favor with translation services) By the way, I also have great respect for Dodger Bulldog, who I believe is left of my middle of the road position, with whom I hope to share a few more beers in our favorite drinking hole.

I respect extreme liberals who are willing to argue for what they believe and are willing to debate far more than 'moderates' from either party who are swayed by flimsy news stories or bumper sticker slogans and have no beliefs.

I love to debate ideas and ideals. I love being right (as in correct, not Right) and am willing to acknowledge when I am wrong (at least I anticipate that I will be able to do that, if it ever occurs) I appreciate the input of others no matter how poorly formulated, stated or founded. From the smartest to the dumbest contributors and lurkers, there should be no hesitancy to weigh in or at least get involved. These issues affect many of us and if you haven't taken an interest in it you should.

I like the fact that there is very little flaming in this forum. There is a certain amount of respect amongst intelligent scoundrels.

I like this thread. However, I rank it a distant number 2 behind all those related to finding great pussy in Bs As.

I will respectfully refuse to post in RH's sanitized thread.

Rather than a long cut and paste job, here's a link (Sydney, please note)

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change[/url]

For all us non-US citizens, despite all the arguments from the Obama haters, we still can't understand why you spend 16-17% of gdp on health care and yet so many still don't have basic health care. Or is the article full of bullshit?

[QUOTE=SteveC]For all us non-US citizens, despite all the arguments from the Obama haters, we still can't understand why you spend 16-17% of gdp on health care and yet so many still don't have basic health care. Or is the article full of bullshit?[/QUOTE]The Obamaites (and that article) throw around the figure "47 million uninsured."

Here's the skinny.

Of those 47 million, about 20 million are illegal immigrants. None of those will be covered under any national health plan.

Of the remaining 27 million, about 7 million are already eligible for employer health care plans, but don't spend the minimal amount of premium money necessary to get coverage.

Of the remaining 20 million, about another 7 million are eligible for Medicaid, the government health insurance program, but they don't bother enrolling in it.

Of the remaining 13 million, an unknown number (let's guess and say 2 million) have the means to purchase their own health insurance (for example, a 20-something adult with no pre-existing conditions, which means the bulk of them, can purchase a comprehensive plan that will cover serious illnesses for about $100 a month)

A final stat: according to the U.S. Census Bureau, something like 8 million people making more than $75,000 a year don't have health insurance. They could buy it, but they choose not to.

Here's the money shot: we're going to raise taxes by $2,000,000,000,000.00 to cover about 5 million people who have no current access to health insurance. That means we'll spend $400,000.00 a person. And Mr. Obama says we're saving money. Right! It's no surprise the support for this proposal is falling faster than Mr. Obama's job approval numbers.

A final observation - nothing has done so much to rehabilitate the Republican Party as letting the Democrats run things for six months. The 2010 elections promise to be an astonishing rout for the Democrats, Republican recapture of the House of Representatives is now a serious possibility.

Hunt,

Thanks. There are a couple key issues here. On the face of it (apolitically--just common sense) it does not make sense to overhaul something that is working (albeit not perfectly in all cases) for 84% of the people in order to address the needs of 16%. That just doesn't make sense. There has never been made a solid reason for doing this (trash the 84% for the 16%) yet there is fervor amongst those who are leading the charge. Why?

Politically: in every case where liberals have tried to level the playing field, it is through bringing down the people on the high-end and never about bring up the people on the low end.

Hunt, the one mistake in your analysis is that the illegals won't be covered by national health care. Yes, the will. They already are. They may face rationing of care, as we all will under these plans but they will still have access by walking into any US hospitals and asking for help.

That said, the Democrats solution for this is to grant blanket amnesty to the 20 million or so illegal immigrants who then as citizens will have access to all public programs through the front door rather than the back door. Any the best part of that is that they will all be able to vote. If 20% of them vote, that's 4 million new Democrat votes in places like Florida, California, Arizona, New York, Illinois and Texas. Add to that Rahm Emanuel controlling the census and look out for some great redistricting.

This is part of a concerted effort to permanently install liberal forces in elected positions. Please don't bother replying that I am a conspiracy theorist or right wing whacko. Respond with a decent argument as to why this isn't true and what altruistic motivations are there for these concerted efforts.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]The Obamaites (and that article) throw around the figure "47 million uninsured."

Here's the skinny.

Of those 47 million, about 20 million are illegal immigrants. None of those will be covered under any national health plan.

Of the remaining 27 million, about 7 million are already eligible for employer health care plans, but don't spend the minimal amount of premium money necessary to get coverage.

Of the remaining 20 million, about another 7 million are eligible for Medicaid, the government health insurance program, but they don't bother enrolling in it.

Of the remaining 13 million, an unknown number (let's guess and say 2 million) have the means to purchase their own health insurance (for example, a 20-something adult with no pre-existing conditions, which means the bulk of them, can purchase a comprehensive plan that will cover serious illnesses for about $100 a month)

A final stat: according to the U. S. Census Bureau, something like 8 million people making more than $75,000 a year don't have health insurance. They could buy it, but they choose not to.

Here's the money shot: we're going to raise taxes by $2,000,000,000,000.00 to cover about 5 million people who have no current access to health insurance. That means we'll spend $400,000.00 a person. And Mr. Obama says we're saving money. Right! It's no surprise the support for this proposal is falling faster than Mr. Obama's job approval numbers.

A final observation - nothing has done so much to rehabilitate the Republican Party as letting the Democrats run things for six months. The 2010 elections promise to be an astonishing rout for the Democrats, Republican recapture of the House of Representatives is now a serious possibility.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the measured comments. I've spoken to some on the other side of fence on this issue, and I'm not sure where (if?) you're going to find any common ground. I'm British, but a sucker for American politics, you fight dirty. Great stuff!

The CIGNA whistle blower has no reason to lie. Saturday's wall street journal discusses a lobbying campaign by health ins and drug industry for just under us$500,000. To keep out the private option--I wonder why?

If the former director of CIGNA's corp public relations says that Michael Moore's Sicko contains a lot of truth, you can likely bet on it. 20% of the movie is slamming cigna for denying legitimate health benefits to policy holders and telling their stories and comparing health care in canada and western europe.

CIGNA let die and backrupted middleclass policy holders. There should be some remedy or basic fairness in making the policy decision rather than maximizing corp profits.

Hunt look at the ERISA regulation re group health care policies. Health insurance lobbyists wrote these regs's. The supreme court has described them as permitting the wolf to guard the henhouse. There is no effective protection for a policy holders under the law.

Show me a way to regulate the health and drug companies and change the corruption associated with congress and lobbyists, and I'll change my mind about the public option.

I've heard that the day a new senator or congressman takes office, he / she spends half their time raising money for the next campaign. Not sure how true that is, but the influence of lobbyists has to be corrupting. Medical insurance companies and medical providers spend a huge sum on buying influence. Are the legislators immune from this and vote according to their conscience / true beliefs, or for their paymasters?

Maybe I'm naive but I tend to trust the word of a whistleblower who risks his career over a lobbyist or legislator paid by them.

But You call yourself a moderate and me a left wing extremist. I am a moderate Democrat who sometimes votes Rebublican. I liked bill clinton's accomplishments[ not necessarily his personal weaknesses] and consider nancy pelosi as not reality based.

Your world view economically and politically might be simular to dick chaney's views--hard right rebublican, some libertarian beliefs on social issues and keep the federal government out of everything that is possible. Ie no regulation of anything that can possibly be avoided; and it is the usa's right and duty to protect the american frame of influence at all costs in the world. REmeber that dick differed from bush on abortion and gay rights--those types of regulation should be left to the states and different state may make different choices. That's the libertarian twist.

I accept your right to have your point of view and vigorously communicate and explain your form of analysis. Your postings have made me actually change my mind on one issue--thanks for taking the time to post the way you do.

BUT---within the frame of reference of the entire usa--I would not likely call you a moderate. The blue dogs are moderates--the block of moderate senators trying to broker a compromise on the pending health care legislation.

If you spend your time talking to investment bankers, hedge fund guys corporate ceo's and high level fortune 500 executives--you are definately a very moderate guy. Any I would be labeled a far left wacko. This likely does not include too much contact with the 47million people without health insurance who hunt dismisses without value as human beings. When I knew hunt he was a goverment atty and not in the top 10% economically in the usa. HUNT check your numbers, please.

In florida I would be considered left wing, but not likely an extremists because I believe in quality public education; don't want religion in the public schools;

Believe in regulation of the insurance industry and other forms of regulation to protect average folks from the raw power of great sums of money; and am saddened by the republicans in florida generally competing as to who can pander more to the highly political evangical christians--praise the lord--I know evangical christians who feal used and manipulated by bush and chaney and rowe--but they don't organize and shoot their mouths off.

Bob

The Audacity of Power written by the president when he was first elected to the senate. The entire systew is corrupt. This is why John McCain and Teddy Kennedy jointly worked together to try to change the influence of lobbyists. They failed.

Another reason why I wouldn't trust any legislator who accepts money from a lobbyist.

"The CCA (Corrections Corporation of America, on the New York stock exchange and owns prisons) and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world's largest prison population -- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line". (A quote from the Huffington Post, so maybe has no credibility whatsover!)

Has everything got to make a profit? Does it make me a communist if I think the government can do some things better than the private sector?

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. I really do believe that the activities of lobbyists distort the whole political system. They've truly fucked up British politics over the last couple of decades.

We're going to need to spend some time over many drinks to work through this!

[QUOTE=Miami Bob]But You call yourself a moderate and me a left wing extremist.[/QUOTE]I tend to occasionally deploy sarcasm when describing myself. For example: "I am a middle of the road moderate with a 14" schlong"

[quote=miami bob]Your world view economically and politically might be simular to dick chaney's views--hard right rebublican, some libertarian beliefs on social issues and keep the federal government out of everything that is possible. Ie no regulation of anything that can possibly be avoided; and it is the usa's right and duty to protect the american frame of influence at all costs in the world.[/QUOTE]I am not the boogieman (well...). I am pretty straight forward not falling in to any one person's camp. I am a Conservative. I am for smaller government, less regulation (not the absence of all regulation) less government intrusion in private matters (straight, gay, whatever) That idyllic, smaller government would require fewer federal employees and a lot less money. Let's get to a flat tax at 10% or a VAT tax and eliminate the income tax completely (watch out by the way for a proposed VAT tax and no reduction in income taxes) I believe in the Constitution (as written and amended) and I believe that all men are created equal and that all Americans must be free to pursue happiness.

I do not believe that the government should endorse or condone any forms of discrimination, which is what the Constitution says. I do not believe in government provided entitlements, free lunches, hand outs or what have you (I do however believe that individuals should practice compassion) That said, we are a moral and just society, as such, we have a moral responsibility to take care of those who are not able to take care of themselves. This segment of society is populated by individuals both on both temporary and permanent bases.

I believe in freedom of religion.

[quote=miami bob] BUT---within the frame of reference of the entire usa--I would not likely call you a moderate.[/QUOTE]You are correct and I would be insulted if called a moderate. Moderates are prone to compromising their principals for personal financial and political advantages. They are spineless, useful idiots.

[quote=miami bob]The blue dogs are moderates--the block of moderate senators trying to broker a compromise on the pending health care legislation.[/QUOTE]If we are negotiating a business deal and I want to sell you my company for $10 and you want to buy it for $9 and we end up settling on a price of $9.5, that is a compromise.

If you believe in individual liberty, private enterprise, capitalism, smaller more efficient government and agree to Obama's health care plan (because you get money and resources for reelection or more federal spending in your district, whatever) you are not compromising. You are selling out your constituents, the American people and the foundation of our society.

If you believe that you are right (as in correct) on any subject, how can you agree to something that you know is incompatible with what you believe?

I believe that less-regulated private industry produces better results and more choices for the American people, across the board in any industry (excluding national defense)

[quote=miami bob]If you spend your time talking to investment bankers, hedge fund guys corporate ceo's and high level fortune 500 executives--you are definately a very moderate guy. Any I would be labeled a far left wacko. This likely does not include too much contact with the 47million people without health insurance who hunt dismisses without value as human beings. [/QUOTE]I know lots of these types. From my experience, most are liberals. In fact of all the really rich people I know, only a couple are conservatives. In my experience, many wealthy people tend to practice "it's the thought that counts." So if they are to busy to really do something with a social benefit, they consciously or subconsciously move to the left because they think that is where there is more compassion. Therefore, while they haven't really done anything, at least the intent was there to do something good so their conscience feels better.

[quote=miami bob]In florida I would be considered left wing, but not likely an extremists because I believe in quality public education; don't want religion in the public schools;

Believe in regulation of the insurance industry and other forms of regulation to protect average folks from the raw power of great sums of money; and am saddened by the republicans in florida generally competing as to who can pander more to the highly political evangical christians--praise the lord--I know evangical christians who feal used and manipulated by bush and chaney and rowe--but they don't organize and shoot their mouths off.[/QUOTE]The government should do what it can demonstrably do better than the private sector. That said, it is so far entrenched in somethings that it will never get out so we have to work with what we have (education, etc)

Intelligent regulation can foster an environment that protects the individual, the corporation and the public at large. Neither regulation nor the lack of regulation can legalize criminal behavior. Criminal activities at the corporate level need to be prosecuted just as harshly as any other type of crime.

I am not an evangelical (TV or otherwise) I believe in God. I believe that everyone else is entitle to believe in the religion of their choice or to live devoid of religion ('freedom of religion'). I do however also believe that without the strong religious faith of our founding fathers, this great nation would not have been established nor would it have prospered for so many years. I do not believe that we as a society should try to erase all traces of our religious foundation ('freedom from religion'), we should celebrate it whilst continuing to practice freedom of religion.

Mongers,

What hardcore right wingers such as Wild Walleye (who granted is a fine and thoughtful writer) refuse to either accept or understand is that affordable healthcare is viewed as and actually is a basic human right in all civilized countries EXCEPT the United States. Even some semi-civilized countries such as Argentina, Brasil, and Colombia have guaranteed affordable healthcare for every one of its citizens. Men like Wild Walleye are of the ilk that Karl Marx proclaimed would destroy the world; greed-blinded capitalists who see no value in any pursuit that does not lead to the advancement of wealth. How about this Wild Wallyeye: imagine you are an independent middle age plumber with asthma and diabetes who cannot obtain health insurance at a reasonable rate and that you have three children and a wife to support. One day you are walking down the street and you fall and break your leg and have to go to the hospital. Upon release from the hospital you are handed a bill for $35,000, which is about 90% of your yearly income (pre-tax) Naturally, you cannot possibly pay this, so you lose your house as a result of the hospital's measures at collecting the debt. Is this fair Wild Walleye? Is this hardworking plumber who cannot obtain reasonably priced health insurance subhuman and undeserving of reasonably priced care?

Healthcare in the United States needs to be reformed; this is the bottom line. A public system should be in put in place that involves free medical school for qualified MD candidates in exchange for 10 years of mandatory service in a public hospital earning a public sector wage with immunity from malpractice litigation. This would function very similar to the US military academies albeit on a much grander scale. After 10 years of mandatory service, MD's could then choose to move on to a more lucrative private practice. I imagine that the Wild Walleyes of the world would claim that they doctors would be incompetent because they were trained by the government. Tell me this Wild Walleye: are the US Air Force and Naval Fighter Pilots incompetent? Or are they the best in the world? The time spent training the MD's would be something similar to what it takes to develop a highly trained fighter pilot. This proposal is not complicated and I am not a genius for suggesting it; the reason it has not happened yet is that the Wild Walleyes and Hunt99's of the world see no value in anything that does not generate profits.

Those who know me know that I am a capitalist and that I make my living doing the most capitalistic of things; buying something for $1 and selling it for $10. I am also extremely anti-bureaucracy and anti- overbearing unnecessary federal government. However, access to affordable health care should be a human right in the USA just as it is in other civilized countries; the profit motive needs to be removed from the health care process as much as possible and this can only be achieved through a comprehensive public healthcare system.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Rock Harder,

Your plan makes alot of sense. However the Tort Lawyers would hate it. One of the reasons for high medical costs are high malpractice insurance. Also the unneeded and redundant medical tests ordered by doctors to CYA. Talking about the military, Military Doctors are exempt from malpractice claims. Instead of completely tearing apart the US system start small and surgically repair the system. Still if I'am really sick I would rather be treated at the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins than anywhere in the world.

Military Doctors are exempt from malpractice claims.

I can guarantee you that, in the United States, military doctors, or doctors working in Veterans Administration Hospitals, are not only not exempt from malpractice claims, they are targets of malpractice claims.

[QUOTE]Health-care firms and their lobbyists spent money at the rate of $1.4 million a day.[/QUOTE][url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/health_care_continues_its_inte.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews[/url]

[QUOTE=Romanee]Rock Harder,

Your plan makes alot of sense. However the Tort Lawyers would hate it. One of the reasons for high medical costs are high malpractice insurance. Also the unneeded and redundant medical tests ordered by doctors to CYA. Talking about the military, Military Doctors are exempt from malpractice claims. Instead of completely tearing apart the US system start small and surgically repair the system. Still if I'am really sick I would rather be treated at the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins than anywhere in the world.[/QUOTE]It's an interesting idea. As you say though, the Tort Lawyers would hate it, so practically that part stands about a 0% chance of making it through a Congress controlled by Democrat lawyers and being signed into law by a Democrat lawyer president.

About Mayo Clinic, there was an interesting article in the New Yorker recently about Medicare expenditures. The Mayo system has among the lowest per patient Medicare expenditures in the U. S. while offering close to the highest level of care. The article contrasted that to McAllen, Texas, where costs are about 2.5 or 3 times Mayo's cost. The reason -- physicians and hospitals in McAllen game the system. They peform procedures that don't need to be performed, order tests that aren't needed, schedule unneeded office visits, etc. Mayo has a more collegial attitude. Cooperation among physicians is encouraged, and they're not compensated based on how many tests they order or how many patients they visit.

Many argue that if government runs national health care the same way it runs Medicare, we're going to end up with higher costs and lower quality of care. I haven't followed this issue closely enough to know, but believe we should be trying to copy institutions like Mayo that provide high quality, lower cost care. Unfortunately, when you get a bunch of U.S. politicians (i. e. Lawyers) designing national health care, I'm afraid it's going to end up more like Medicare in McAllen than Mayo.

The Feres Doctrine, a 1950 Supreme Court ruling, forbids active-duty military personnel and their families from suing the federal government for injuries incidental to their service. In other words, unlike every other U. S. Citizen, people in the military cannot sue the federal government for medical malpractice. One argument - that allowing the lawsuits would disrupt military order and discipline.

Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

Could we really repeat the civil war--reds vs blues? We seem to be doing it on AP. Brothers fighting and name calling.

Thanks for the Republican propaganda chain letter Sid,

[url]http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/oklahoma.asp[/url]

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_oklahoma_as_defiantly_conservative_as_a.html[/url]

Regards,

BM.

Sid expresses his creative sense by posting chain letters again. More good news: hate is alive and well in the USA. Let's set up a public works projects to create jobs: building detention camps where people not liked by any group can build a wall between the USA and Mexico. The world is ending: illegal immigrants.

In a country made up of immigrants: Round up illegals; put them in camps; seperate families: the kids born here are citizens--send their parents back to where they come from. That's the good thing that Christ would want---maybe we should tattoo their foreheads and make them wear gold stars on their clothing. Hate is a patriotic thing! Let's all prey!

Only Oklahoma did not actually do it. The rumors of hate are likely brought to you by the smae good honest people claiming that obama is an illegal immigrant. The only republican to stand up and say stop the lies--john mcCain--a maverick.

State of the Nation: [url]http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/26/757458/-The-System-At-Work[/url]

[QUOTE]The GOP goal is to kill healthcare reform outright; their strategists are saying as much. Not to kill single payer or a public option, but to kill the whole notion of reform. The legislators tasked with coming up with alternative plans declared, this last week, that none were needed; Senator Inhofe muses out loud about how much his party might be helped if they can manage to stop reform outright.

I suppose it is worth pondering the how and the why of such things. Do they earnestly believe that there's absolutely nothing that needs to be done about health care in this country? Are they so transparently in the pockets of the lobbyists that they are willing make a bold stand on "everything is fine", when a mere look out the window says it's not?

It's puzzling that such a stance could even be remotely effective. Everybody in America seems to hate their insurance provider, at least everyone who has ever had to use it because they actually got sick. Everybody knows how bad getting actual healthcare has become in this country; everybody has stories of being screwed roundly by their insurance, or not being able to get insurance in the first place, or knows someone else who has had worse experiences.

And yet even in something with such widespread support, all you have to do to foul up the works is (1) invoke partisan pride, so that all the other conservatives or Republicans will simply oppose whatever-it-is out of reflex, and (2) make up a bunch of scary-sounding bullcrap, much of it provided by the insurance companies themselves, and hork it up on television via friendly hosts and anchors. (And again -- transparently. The very same scary-sounding phrases or made-up statistics make it into twenty or fifty or a hundred different political and pundit mouths in a single day, with not even an attempt to disguise the obvious commonality of the source.

Consider it: this is all it takes to possibly stop something that has, what, 80 or 85% of the public behind it. And it's yet another example of how a single industry, spending not all that much money in the grand scheme of things, can very, very easily counter the collective will of the entire population. And how entrenched the notion is, among the majority of politicians, and pundits, and anchors, and political hangers-on, that that's not only fine but the way things should work.

It seems increasingly easy to understand why there's an culture of mistress-banging and airport-bathroom-handjob-seeking and prostitute-visiting, among our leaders. They truly believe themselves above normal morality or normal law by virtue of their positions. The same mind that can demand moral perfection in others, when it comes to sex, has absolutely no problem preaching those things to others while doing the exact opposite themselves, because they are different from others. There's no contradiction in their minds: they're powerful, so they're a special case. Arrests can be made by the dozen, in New Jersey, and it seems hardly noteworthy. Rush Limbaugh can be caught with illegal prescriptions, after years of railing against drug users, and it does not so much as put a scratch in his Four Hundred Million Dollar career. Rules exist for others; laws exist for others; morality exists for others; personal power or personal advantage is the only goal worth seeking.

After twenty years of the same fight on the same healthcare issues, one thing is transparently obvious, from the pronouncements of the supposed leaders of the opposition: whether or not anyone in America is truly needing of healthcare, from a practical, economic, moral, ethical, or any other standard simply does not enter the debate. I personally do not expect many of these politicians even have an awareness that other people might have medical needs different from their own, or not have insurance like their own insurance, or not be as connected or as well-off; that requires a level of awareness that few of them can even bother to credibly pretend at. The question among our supposed leaders and brilliant minds is only how can this debate be used to extract personal or career advantage for them. If we kill healthcare reform, who will "win" the politics of killing it? Who will have an easier time being elected, or find themselves on television more often?

There's no moral calculus at all, for people like Kristol, or Inhofe, or Gingrich, or other supposed leaders. None is pretended at: none is cowed to. There's no good or bad, there's no long term vs short term -- nothing. And it's among both Republican and Democrat, and it has become increasingly easy to see which are which. Gingrich can have his affairs, and you can't. Our leaders can visit their whores, but you're a dirty rotten sinner if you do. They can have healthcare, because that's just how things work, pal. You can't -- at least, not if there is personal, political advantage to them in preventing it.

It's not even corruption, because "corruption" implies they know they're doing something wrong. It's a complete amorality. This same group of people, this same party of high-minded No, this same party of constant scandal, constant national security blunders, constant deficits, constant manipulations is going to kill healthcare reform because it helps them get cash or influence; they will happily attempt an impeachment of a president for denying an affair while having and denying affairs by the dozens themselves; they're going to ditch the wife and their duties and fly to Argentina to get laid because it makes them happy, and that's all that matters. If it causes problems later, shed some tears and make it go away. (If you're Sarah Palin, pride of Republicanism, hell -- you don't even have to do your actual job. You can pull a Carrie Prejean, bail on all your duties and just wander off to give speeches to promote yourself, and if anyone has a problem with it it's because they don't understand how great you are.

Republicans are still citing, with pride, how they blocked healthcare reform attempts in the Clinton years, an action which directly led to the runaway healthcare costs between then and now. In the Clinton years, 95 cents of every dollar paid in premiums was paid out again for medical care: now it's plummeted to 80 cents, the rest going to administration and profits. But they're proud of this result, and not defensive at all, because whether it be twenty years ago of twenty minutes ago, the whole debate hinges, for them, on what political advantage can be squeezed out of it at any given moment of time, and not on what effects their actions might actually have.

If it means your mother can't get her medicines, or means you can't see a doctor, or your injured child gets wheeled out of the hospital just as soon as they are stabilized, with absolutely no long term care whatsoever, they don't just not care: it doesn't enter their heads.

That is what is so striking about our governance: it is increasingly devoid of even the pretenses of public good. The notion that we should reform healthcare in this nation because it needs reforming is nearly a comical argument; the only relevant or even commonly debated question is who will gain or lose from a strictly political fight to achieve or block the effort. Regardless of popular opinion it can be absolutely assured that whether or not you believe American citizens deserve a more rational healthcare system is entirely dependent on which party you belong to.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Miami Bob]...can build a wall between the USA and Mexico...[/QUOTE]How in the hell could anyone possibly be against securing our country's borders?

[QUOTE=Miami Bob]...separate families: the kids born here are citizens...send their parents back to where they come from...[/QUOTE]Those are "Anchor babies" whose births are deliberately planned to provide their parents an excuse to remain in the USA after entering the country illegally. Don't be fooled! The true blame goes to the parents who deliberately placed their children in this position.

Anyway, there's no need to separate anyone, the anchor babies can go with the illegal parents when they return to their home country.

[QUOTE=Jackson]How in the hell could anyone possibly be against securing our country's borders?

Those are "Anchor babies" whose births are deliberately planned to provide their parents an excuse to remain in the USA after entering the country illegally. Don't be fooled! The true blame goes to the parents who deliberately placed their children in this position.

Anyway, there's no need to separate anyone, the anchor babies can go with the illegal parents when they return to their home country.[/QUOTE]I am all for legal immigration, but why the rant against people who are trying to survive and give their children a better future. Isn't American business and Congress responsible for the current mess. Let's put the blame where it should be.

When the approval ratings for 'W' were worse than this, did you still support him?

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]I am all for legal immigration, but why the rant against people who are trying to survive and give their children a better future. Isn't American business and Congress responsible for the current mess. Let's put the blame where it should be.[/QUOTE]Hi Black Shirt,

1. They can "survive and give their children a better future" in their own country.

2. "American business and Congress" is not responsible for individuals who make a conscience decision to violate our immigration laws that are already on the books.

BTW, IMHO, a foreign guest worker program is the best solution to the entire problem, but it won't happen because of resistance by special interest groups on both sides of the aisle.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=SteveC]When the approval ratings for 'W' were worse than this, did you still support him?[/QUOTE]Hi SteveC,

I don't believe that GW had these kind of negative approval ratings regarding his handling of the economy 6 months into his presidency.

Oh, I get it now: You were trying to discount BHO's approval ratings on his handling of the economy at six months into his presidency by comparing them with GW's approval ratings on [u]another[/u] [u]subject[/u] at [u]another[/u] [u]point[/u] in GW's presidency.

Yea, I can see where your's would have been a more accurate comparison.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Sidney]Obama and the economy Results.

Q. The president's progress with the battered economy has been both praised and criticized. How well are his efforts measuring up with you?

Not well at all. His plans are hurting more than helping. 71%

537455 votes[/QUOTE]The number is bogus, you have got to quit stuffing the ballot box Sid.

As is consistent with my past posts, I am not opposed to creating incentives and or requirements that create a safety net for those who truly cannot get coverage, but I am wholly against letting the government take over the industry am lead us to a single-payer system (socialized health care) Barney Frank confirmed yesterday that the current "health care reform" is the best way to get to a single-payer system, which he sees as an important objective.

This article is an excellent read and gives you the numbers and facts on what single-payer means to you and me. The facts are stunning. The democrats' health care packages are wrong and will destroy the economy and the quality of our care and will fix absolutely. It's that simple.

Voters and constituents need to tell their reps and senators "Throw it out and start again, this time address the real problems and don't just skip ahead to the 'let's take over health care part.'" If anyone should be the target of anger in this debate, it should be the congress which has deliberately skipped over addressing any of the real issues and is going for the gold of taking over 1/6th of the US economy.

[url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]As is consistent with my past posts, I am not opposed to creating incentives and or requirements that create a safety net for those who truly cannot get coverage, but I am wholly against letting the government take over the industry am lead us to a single-payer system (socialized health care) Barney Frank confirmed yesterday that the current "health care reform" is the best way to get to a single-payer system, which he sees as an important objective.

This article is an excellent read and gives you the numbers and facts on what single-payer means to you and me. The facts are stunning. The democrats' health care packages are wrong and will destroy the economy and the quality of our care and will fix absolutely. It's that simple.

Voters and constituents need to tell their reps and senators "Throw it out and start again, this time address the real problems and don't just skip ahead to the 'let's take over health care part.'" If anyone should be the target of anger in this debate, it should be the congress which has deliberately skipped over addressing any of the real issues and is going for the gold of taking over 1/6th of the US economy.

[url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html[/url][/QUOTE]Don't slam me because I do not know everything. I know what you say about the "Single Payer system" but Obama has not mentioned once about a "Single Payer System". In fact in his last 2 town hall meetings that was nationaly brodcasted He specifically stated this was not a single payer system, rather it was a "dual system". I have not seen any facts about anything negative. I did watch "Sicko" And it seems their is alot to be studdied.