# The TEA Bag party is racist



## SvK (Mar 24, 2010)

The TEA Bag party is racist and the Republican leaders who support them are shameless and know better...

It will not be the Dems Waterloo in November, it will be all theirs.

Ugly stuff.

SvK


----------



## C M Dess (Mar 24, 2010)

0oD


----------



## midphase (Mar 24, 2010)

The Tea Party reminds me a lot of what must have been going on in Germany in the 1930's.


----------



## midphase (Mar 24, 2010)

"The white-hot rhetoric that dominated the last several months of debate on the historic health care bill culminated in unruly protests by the Tea Party movement at the Capitol over the weekend. Three African-American House Democrats, including civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, reported protesters shouted racial slurs at them and spit at one of them, while Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, an openly gay House member, had anti-gay slurs yelled at him."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/24/ ... tml?hpt=T1


----------



## midphase (Mar 24, 2010)

"Republican House members encouraged protesters outside and inside the House gallery, some of whom carried messages like "Vote no or else" or "If Brown won't stop it, a Browning will" -- a reference to newly elected Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown accompanied by a silhouette of a pistol."


----------



## P.T. (Mar 24, 2010)

midphase @ Wed Mar 24 said:


> The Tea Party reminds me a lot of what must have been going on in Germany in the 1930's.



Actually, this is what was going on;

By: Kitty Werthmann (You can type her name in your search bar)

What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books.

I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide 98% of the vote. I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people, about 30 daily.

The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna, Linz, and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.
Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Hitler Targets Education Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles, and had physical education.

Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.

The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

Equal Rights Hits Home:

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.


----------



## P.T. (Mar 24, 2010)

And this;

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:

Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for health care, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business.


If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

Mercy Killing Redefined:

In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

The Final Steps - Gun Laws:

Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles.

The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.

After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria. Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.

Its true those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World.

Don't Let Freedom Slip Away!

"After America, There is No Place to Go."
______________________

Sound familiar?


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

Oh boy...what a nutjob this lady is. Ignorant and racist people listen to her nonsense and end up comparing Obama to Hitler...it's insulting, dangerous, incredibly insipid and ultimately blatantly irresponsible.

This is the nonsense that is destroying our country...not better health care....oh boy!


----------



## P.T. (Mar 25, 2010)

It's not about comparing anyone to Hitler.
You are the one who brought up Nazi Germany.
What she said is very much what iòª•   ÊÚÊª•   ÊÚËª•   ÊÚÌª•   ÊÚÍª•   ÊÚÎª•   ÊÚÏª•   ÊÚÐª•   ÊÚÑª•   ÊÚÒª•   ÊÚÓª–   ÊÙÎª–   ÊÙÏª–   ÊÚÚª–   ÊÚÛª–   ÊÚÜª–   ÊÚÝª–   ÊÚÞª–   ÊÚßª–   ÊÚàª–   ÊÚáª–   ÊÚâª–   ÊÚãª–   ÊÚäª–   ÊÚåª–   ÊÚæª–   ÊÚçª–   ÊÚèª–   ÊÚéª—   ÊÚêª—   ÊÚëª—   ÊÚìª—   ÊÚíª—   ÊÚîª—   ÊÚïª—   ÊÚðª—   ÊÚñª˜   ÊÚòª˜   ÊÚóª˜   ÊÚôª˜   ÊÚõª˜   ÊÚöª˜   ÊÚ÷ª˜   ÊÚøª˜   ÊÚùª˜   ÊÚúª˜   ÊÚûª˜   ÊÚüª˜   ÊÚýª˜   ÊÚþª˜   ÊÚÿª˜   ÊÛ ª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛ	ª˜   ÊÛ
ª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛ ª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛª˜   ÊÛ ª˜   ÊÛ!ª˜   ÊÛ"ª˜   ÊÛ#ª˜   ÊÛ$ª˜   ÊÛ%ª˜   ÊÛ&ª˜   ÊÛ'ª˜   ÊÛ(ª˜   ÊÛ)ª™   Êƒ^ª™   Êƒ_ª™   ÊÛ*ª™   ÊÛ+ª™   ÊÛ,ª™   ÊÛ-ª™   ÊÛ.ª™   ÊÛ/ª™   ÊÛ0ª™   ÊÛ1ª™   ÊÛ2ª™   ÊÛ3ª™   ÊÛ4ª™   ÊÛ5ª™   ÊÛ6ª™   ÊÛ7ª™   ÊÛ8ª™   ÊÛ9ªš   ÊÛ:ªš   ÊÛ;              òªš   ÊÛ=ªš   ÊÛ>ªš   ÊÛ?ªš   ÊÛ@ªš   ÊÛAªš   ÊÛBªš   ÊÛCªš   ÊÛDªš   ÊÛEªš


----------



## P.T. (Mar 25, 2010)

Hannes;

Are you required by law to buy Health insurance in Germany?

As for protecting anyone's profit, that is part of the problem with this legislation.
It was very careful not to step on anyone's profits.

If you noticed, Big pharma and financial stocks went up when this passed.
Insurance companies are likely to raise rates and big pharma will sell even more drugs at excessive prices.

This bill doesn't address these things as far as I know.

Low income people were already getting healthcare at Gov't expense. The difference now is that the Gov't will be paying for insurance for those people instead, thereby giving profits to a middleman instead of paying directly.
So, they are moving from a socialized system ( direct gov't payment) to a for profit system (paying an insurance company).
That seems like an odd way to save money.

So, where are your thoughtful comments on all of this?
All I hear is Yay for our side.

I posted the bit about 1930's Germany because someone found it necessary to call a group nazis because some of them are idiot racists.

Most people know next to nothing about the Nazis or the Communists either.

We will see how it works out.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 25, 2010)

Evan Gamble @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> Thanks Hannes! But man are people in a uproar!



Hmm ... not really understandeable at first sight ... but what are their arguments (if it is possible to describe that without exaggerations or emotions)?



P.T. said:


> Hannes;
> 
> Are you required by law to buy Health insurance in Germany?



Yes, and it serves us quite well since decades. The system is not perfect of course but overall it works. Anybody who wanted to get rid of the obligatory Health Care system would receive resistance ... from all parties from left to right. What is the problem with it?


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 25, 2010)

I'm an empiricist at heart. If those who so violently rail against these changes could just answer this question for me: do you honestly think "staying the course " is going to get the States out of this crisis? Because so far it seems like it hasn't done squat.

Change is endemic to our planet. If we didn't feel that urge to try to improve things, something that is inherent in our genetic makeup, we'd still be sitting around a fire in a cave scratching our asses grunting at one another.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 25, 2010)

Hi P.T.,

I am not sure you meant me to answer these questions but I try to tell from what is our experience here.



P.T. @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> If you noticed, Big pharma and financial stocks went up when this passed.



That seems logical, indeed.



> Insurance companies are likely to raise rates



We have a system here of two health insurance classes. First is the class of obligatory health insurance. As an employed or unemployed person you must choose one of these companies and pay a fee that is a percenteage of your income, around 20 %. Among them then there is a competition since they differ slightly in the amount of the percenteage and what kind of treatment they pay. Some will pay more alternative medicine, some less, for example. If you are employed the employer must pay half of the health insurance contribution.

Second class: If you are employed and earn more than EUR 49,950 per year then you are allowed to change to private health insurance. There the fee is a fixed lump sum, and usually these companies pay more alternative medicine etc. These insurance companies also are in competition to each other.

As you see there is competition among the insurance companies and this helps to keep the health insurance contribution in borders.

Holding costs in bay is constant work done by insurance companies and politicians. It does not happen if you let it alone.

There are some that can really loose in our system. This is the group of self-employed persons that can not pay the health insurance contribution any more and drop out of insurance. I have seen several of those cases in my circle of friends. It is a route that usually starts with not going to the dentist any more for the yearly checkup and ends with severe illness ... not good. Luckily less than 0.5 % of all people are without health insurance here. However they tightened the law lately and to drop out of health insurance is illegal now and there are special offers for these cases.

BTW for self-employed artists we have a special fund that pays half of the health insurance contribution (the state plays the role of an employer here), and they are required to have health insurance in any case.



> and big pharma will sell even more drugs at excessive prices.



This is a real threat and needs constant work by insurances and politicians here. You need a dedicated health minister that fights with teeth and claws against costs, that is true (since governement funds part of the health systems they are interested in keeping costs low and also have some leverage on it).


----------



## JohnG (Mar 25, 2010)

I am absolutely shocked at a comparison between Hitler and Obama, of any kind. If you were a child in Austria in the 1930s, it is understandable that you could have been ignorant of Hitler's horrific manifesto, Mein Kampf, which is full of hatred and racist bigotry. But any adult cannot pretend to have been wholly ignorant of what he said, because he published it, and repeated it over and over, in speech after speech. By the time of the Anschluss, there was no way for an informed adult to be ignorant of these stated, public goals, and some of the infamous events, such as Kristallnacht, that had already taken place in Germany.

By contrast, Obama's message has consistently been one of tolerance and inclusion, which, owing to political changes (gerrymandering), his opponents have almost had no choice but to rebuff. 

This message of tolerance is a fundamental difference, and far from being merely cosmetic, is an extremely important one. Intolerance and name-calling are not harmless, as the Hutus and Tutsis, the Guomindang and Communists of China, Stalin and his opponents, and of course Hitler and his opponents demonstrated. Demagogues and hate-peddlers usually demonise their opponents.

It is exactly that language that comes from talk radio today in the US, and it threatens real harm, not just "boys will be boys." Impressionable crazies -- Timothy McVeigh and the Weather Underground -- kill people with these slogans sloshing around in their heads.

Health Care Premiums Already Compulsory in Developed WoròªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   Êî ªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   ÊîªÝ   Êî ªÝ   Êî!ªÝ   Êî"ªÝ   Êî#ªÝ   Êî$ªÝ   Êî%ªÝ   Êî&ªÝ   Êî'ªÞ   Êî(ªÞ   Êî)ªÞ   Êî*ªÞ   Êî+ªÞ   Êî,ªÞ   Êî-ªÞ   Êî.ªÞ   Êî/ªÞ   Êî0ªÞ   Êî1ªÞ   Êî2ªÞ   Êî3ªÞ   Êî4ªÞ   Êî5ªÞ   Êî6ªÞ   Êî7ªÞ   Êî8ªÞ   Êî9ªÞ   Êî:ªÞ   Êî;ªÞ   Êî<ªÞ   Êî=ªÞ   Êî>ªÞ   Êî?ªÞ   Êî@ªÞ   ÊîAªß   ÊîBªß   ÊîCªß   ÊîDªß   ÊîEªß   ÊîFªß   ÊîGªß   ÊîHªß   ÊîIªß   ÊîJªß   ÊîKªß   ÊîLªß   ÊîMªß   ÊîNªß   ÊîOªß   ÊîPªß   ÊîQªß   ÊîRªß   ÊîSªß   ÊîTªß   ÊîUªß   ÊîVªß   ÊîWªß   ÊîXªß   ÊîYªß   ÊîZªß   Êî[ªß   Êî\ªß   Êî]ªà   Êî^ªà   Êî_ªà   Êî`ªà   Êîaªà   Êîbªà   Êîcªà   Êîdªà   Êîeªà   Êîfªà   Êîgªà   Êîhªà   Êîiªà   Êîjªà   Êîkªá   Êîlªá   Êîmªá   Êînªá   Êîoªá   Êîpªá   Êîqªá   Êîrªá   Êîsªá   Êîtªá   Êîuªâ   Êîvªâ   Êîwªâ   Êîxªâ   Êîyªâ   Êîz              òªâ   Êî|ªâ   Ê


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

"Dissent is patriotic...or is it only "liberal" dissent that is patriotic? "

Dissent is patriotic. What the Tea Party is about is not dissent, but rather anger and violence, with some not so subtle racist undertones. And it is fueled by ignorance and misinformation, not rational educated reasoning. I have never seen this type of viciousness come from either side before now, the Tea Party is an unprecedented turn for the worst in this country's history.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 25, 2010)

> ‘What the Tea Party is about is not dissent, but rather anger and violence, with some not so subtle racist undertones. I have never seen this type of viciousness come from either side before now, the Tea Party is an unprecedented turn for the worst in this country's history.’’


This hate speech talk by the press is a red herring. Trying to take attention from the anger & distrust the American feel regarding the Healthcare bill. 

Don’t believe what the press is trying to turn out now. If any of it’s true it is extremely rare, misguided and minor. There was no recording of the Tea Party demonstrators hurling racial epithets against African-American legislators . Well, there were recordings of people yelling at people but there are no ‘n-words’ recorded. And I even saw that one of the legislators (turns out that it was Jesse Jackson Jr.) had 2 cell phones pointing them at people to encourage them on. They had their own devices and no one recorded racial slurs. Just ‘Kill the Bill!’. They attempted to provoke a situation by providing an opportunity and exacerbating it – parading in front of the protesters when they had other ways to gain egress. It didn’t work. Still, that’s not stopping the press and their agenda. 

Stenny Hoyer comes out with all of the so-called threats yesterday. Well, lets’ see them and evaluate them in the light of day. Is this not fair and responsible? Let’s find out the truth and let everyone know.

Where was your outrage at the McCain volunteers who got pepper-sprayed during the election? Where was your rage when Democratic members of congress gave Code Pink passes to get into congressional meetings to cause outbursts. Bomb threats against the Tea Party before demonstrations. How did you feel when books and movies on how to kill Bush came out? Today Eric Cantor, Republican whip, has reported received threats and someone took a shot at his office. How did you feel about the Black Panthers who stood in the doorway of a polling place with weapons on election day? 

All of the media-created talk about Tea Party violence is a Red Herring. The real situation is the anger of the American people about the nature of this Healthcare bill.

Apparently the people will not be distracted. 

I read a MSNBC poll on Tuesday (yes, I read & watch MSNBC) and 67.3% of Americans on MSNBC(!) said they were ‘Angry’ about this bill. A CBS poll today reported 62% of Americans who want the Republicans to continue to fight this bill. 

Since the bill has already passed why does Obama have to go out today and have a pep rally for it? It’s because we don’t like it. 

This isn’t only about specific individuals who belong to the Tea Party movement. It’s about the great majority of Americans who are concerned about this. This is not a fringe movement. And we’re not going to roll over. 

Thanks for taking the time to read this. 

.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

Jack,

Obama has to go out to explain to people the factual truth about the bill and try to defuse all the anger that's been fueled by lies like that the government wants to kill the elderly.

It's really sad that the leader of the country has to use his time to undo all the harm that the dissemination of misinformation has done, and not focus on more pressing matters.

There is no anger and distrust coming from the majority of Americans, polls show that most people are in favor of the newly passed bill.

The anger is coming primarily by a small but extremely focused group, driven by multi-millionaire radio talk show hosts and Fox News hosts whose interests are so far away from those of the average Tea Party member it's amazing to me that these people can be so easily manipulated and not realize that they're working against themselves.

I think the problem is that Conservatives has been so effective in throwing so much misinformation and fear tactics into the mix that a large chunk of Americans have no clear idea of what just passed. Slowly (and with Obama's continued efforts) they will understand the facts and I'd love to see how many people are in favor of repealing this bill 3 years from now.

Mark my words, once the American public cuts through all the clutter and really understands how much this bill benefits them, they will never want to go back to the way things were before it.


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 25, 2010)

> 1. How can ANY insurance company survive if they are not allowed to reject NEW customers with pre-existing conditions? If I can buy insurance on the way to the hospital, why would anyone ever buy insurance before hand? It is a logical impossibility for insurance companies to exist under these conditions



That's the reason why there has to be a health insurance everybody can afford and is obligatory! Since every has an obligatory health insurance nobody won't need to buy one one the way to the hospital. But exactly that is what republicans call 'socialism', since it would have to be dictated by the government (just like in Germany or Sweden for example). 
Anyway, what would you say, if you had a pre-exisiting condition? Would you like to go bankrupt because of it? Because you won't get any health insurance at all? 



> 2. Please explain how this bill reduces the cost of health insurance AND increases quality. If you truly believe that, you live in a world of "puppies and rainbows". It is a logical impossibility that adding millions more people to the Medicare system will not lead to the rationing of healthcare.



A obligatory and affordable health care could be cheaper, since the insurance companies won't be able to dictate the prices. Anyway, I agree that the cost reduction factor is questionable. But still: it'ò«   ÊöÙ«   ÊöÚ«   ÊöÛ«   ÊöÜ«   ÊöÝ«   ÊöÞ«   Êöß«   Êöà«   Êöá«   Êöâ«   Êöã«   Êöä«   Êöå«   Êöæ«   Êöç«   Êöè«   Êöé«   Êöê«   Êöë«   Êöì«   Êöí«   Êöî«   Êöï«   Êöð«   Êöñ«   Êöò«   Êöó«   Êöô«   Êöõ«   Êöö«   Êö÷«   Êöø«   Êöù«   Êöü«   Êöý«   Êöþ«   Êöÿ«   Ê÷ «   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷	«   Ê÷
«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷ «   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷ «   Ê÷!«   Ê÷"«   Ê÷#«   Ê÷$«   Ê÷%«   Ê÷&«   Ê÷'«   Ê÷(«   Ê÷)«   Ê÷*«   Ê÷+«   Ê÷,«   Ê÷-«   Ê÷.«   Ê÷/«   Ê÷0«   Ê÷1«   Ê÷2«   Ê÷3«   Ê÷4«   Ê÷5«   Ê÷6«   Ê÷7«   Ê÷8«   Ê÷9«   Ê÷:«   Ê÷;«   Ê÷<«   Ê÷=«   Ê÷>«   Ê÷?«   Ê÷@«   Ê÷A«   Ê÷B«   Ê÷C«   Ê÷D«   Ê÷E«   Ê÷F«   Ê÷G«   Ê÷H«   Ê÷I«   Ê÷J              ò«   Ê÷L«   Ê÷M«   Ê÷N«   Ê÷O«   Ê÷P«   Ê÷Q«   Ê÷R«   Ê÷S«   Ê÷T«   Ê÷U«   Ê÷V«   Ê÷W«   Ê÷X«   Ê÷Y«   Ê÷Z«   Ê÷[«   Ê÷\«   Ê÷]«   Ê÷^«   Ê÷_«   Ê÷`«   Ê÷a«   Ê÷b«   Ê÷c«   Ê÷d«   Ê÷e«   Ê÷f«   Ê÷g«   Ê÷h«   Ê÷i«   Ê÷j«   Ê÷k«   Ê÷l«   Ê÷m«   Ê÷n«   Ê÷o«   Ê÷p«   Ê÷q«   Ê÷r«   Ê÷s«   Ê÷t«   Ê÷u«   Ê÷v«   Ê÷w«   Ê÷x«   Ê÷y«   Ê÷z«   Ê÷{«   Ê÷|«   Ê÷}«   Ê÷~«   Ê÷«   Ê÷€«   Ê÷«   Ê÷‚«   Ê÷ƒ«   Ê÷„«   Ê÷…«   Ê÷†«   Ê÷‡«   Ê÷ˆ«   Ê÷‰«   Ê÷Š«   Ê÷‹«   Ê÷Œ«   Ê÷«   Ê÷Ž«   Ê÷«   Ê÷«   Ê÷‘«   Ê÷’«   Ê÷“«   Ê÷”«   Ê÷•«   Ê÷–«   Ê÷—«   Ê÷˜«   Ê÷™«   Ê÷š«   Ê÷›«   Ê÷œ«   Ê÷«   Ê÷ž«   Ê÷Ÿ«   Ê÷ «   Ê÷¡«   Ê÷¢«   Ê÷£«   Ê÷¤«   Ê÷¥«   Ê÷¦«   Ê÷§«   Ê÷¨«   Ê÷©«   Ê÷ª«   Ê÷««   Ê÷¬«   Ê÷­«   Ê÷®«   Ê÷¯«   Ê÷°«   Ê÷±«   Ê÷²«   Ê÷³«   Ê÷´«   Ê÷µ«   Ê÷¶«   Ê÷·«   Ê÷¸«   Ê÷¹«   Ê÷º«   Ê÷»              ò«   Ê÷½«   Ê÷¾«   Ê÷¿«   Ê÷À«   Ê÷Á«   Ê÷Â«   Ê÷Ã«   Ê÷Ä«   Ê÷Å«   Ê÷Æ«   Ê÷Ç«   Ê÷È«   Ê÷É«   Ê÷Ê«   Ê÷Ë«   Ê÷Ì«   Ê÷Í«   Ê÷Î«   Ê÷Ï«   Ê÷Ð«   Ê÷Ñ«   Ê÷Ò«   Ê÷Ó«   Ê÷Ô«   Ê÷Õ«   Ê÷Ö«   Ê÷×«   Ê÷Ø«   Ê÷Ù«   Ê÷Ú«   Ê÷Û«   Ê÷Ü«   Ê÷Ý«   Ê÷Þ«   Ê÷ß«   Ê÷à«   Ê÷á«   Ê÷â«   Ê÷ã«   Ê÷ä«   Ê÷å«   Ê÷æ«   Ê÷ç«   Ê÷è«   Ê÷é«   Ê÷ê«   Ê÷ë«   Ê÷ì«   Ê÷í«   Ê÷î«   Ê÷ï«   Ê÷ð«   Ê÷ñ«   Ê÷ò«   Ê÷ó«   Ê÷ô«   Ê÷õ«   Ê÷ö«   Ê÷÷«   Ê÷ø«   Ê÷ù«   Ê÷ú«   Ê÷û«   Ê÷ü«   Ê÷ý«   Ê÷þ«   Ê÷ÿ«   Êø «   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø	«   Êø
«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø «   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø«   Êø «   Êø!«   Êø"«   Êø#«   Êø$«   Êø%«   Êø&«   Êø'«   Êø(«   Êø)«   ËR«   ËS«   ËT              ò«   ËV«   ËW«   ËX«   ËY«   ËZ«   Ë[«   Ë\«   Ë]«	   Êø,«	   Êø-«


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

"Alexander Fleming found it, working in London. Which I think isn't in the USA "

There is a London, Minnesota....does that count?


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 25, 2010)

> I read a MSNBC poll on Tuesday (yes, I read & watch MSNBC) and 67.3% of Americans on MSNBC(!) said they were ‘Angry’ about this bill. A CBS poll today reported 62% of Americans who want the Republicans to continue to fight this bill.



Hey Jay, I guess you overlooked this paragraph. 

Don't you think it's cool that the Gov't is now taking over the student loan industry? Well, except for that one bank in N.D. that belongs to the congressman who suddenly changed his vote to 'Yes' on the bill? 


.


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 25, 2010)

I'm afraid it does.................... not :twisted:


----------



## José Herring (Mar 25, 2010)

To people that don't live here,

The Tea Party is a conservative movement in America.

There are actually 3 forms of political thought that comprise the conservative movement. First there's the Ronald Reagan conservative. He's actually a libertarian or Neo-Conservative. In actual fact this type of conservative is actually "Classical Liberal". They run as republicans because calling yourself a "classical liberal" or Libertarian won't get you elected in the US. These are the guys that believe in less government involvement in the society, lower taxes ect.... They fail because if you lower taxes then you lower government revenue so then you have to borrow for the wars, ect.... So each time a Reagan or a Bush gets into office the government goes broke. So they can't live up to their ideals.

The next type of conservative actually stems for our English roots. Edmund Birk was horrified by the French Revolution. He blamed the over throw of the monarchy on the spread of ideas throughout the populace. So he wrote a book on how to basically brainwash the populace of England so that they would never turn against the monarchy. In his book he said that if you push the ideas of "loyalty to country, devotion to God and devotion to the family" that it would rob the populace of the ability to generate new ideas and would "conserve" the status quo. He was deadly right. Because people then would have faith in these things without question.

So the Neo-Conservative/libertarian/Reagan Republican blended the libertarian platform with the traditional conservative platform and came up with the modern Republican party of less government, lower taxes, God, country, family and so called the conservative values. Now also traditionally in the US the Republican party is also aligned with big business and capitalist practices so you have these things competing with each other.

So the Tea Party was born to get back to the "Traditional" conservative values. They align themselves with Republicans and one off shoot of the Party is funded by older republicans. But conservative values in America are racist. As a black person when I hear the words "traditional" values I really do see black people getting hosed in the streets of the south, segregation, ect... The traditional America that these guys want so desperately want to return to is really just a white majority rule. Now that the whites are kind of becoming a minority group some of them are not going quietly. So the ideas become confused with Americas racist past and all in all the conservative movement in America is a mass of confused principles that nobody can define thus it's failing.

It was the great sprinter Jesse Owens who said back in the 1940's that he as a black man was treated better in Nazi Germany that he was in his own country. In Nazi Germany he was able to stay in any hotel he wanted. He was able to eat anywhere he wanted, ect.. That wasn't true in America. So for most minorities in America the idea of returning to "traditional values" is a return to the bad old days. Kind of like asking a Jew to return to the great old days of Nazi Germany. We hope that that never happens.

Thus I'm liberal. Though I do think the "Classical" liberals have a point. Government involvement in the affairs of the US has lead to some remarkable breakthroughs in Human rights, but at the same time there's something really comforting about having a government that lives within its means. If that's even possible these days.

José


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 25, 2010)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> > I read a MSNBC poll on Tuesday (yes, I read & watch MSNBC) and 67.3% of Americans on MSNBC(!) said they were ‘Angry’ about this bill. A CBS poll today reported 62% of Americans who want the Republicans to continue to fight this bill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It depends on whose poll you believe. I trust Gallop more.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 25, 2010)

[quote:f7ff38d81d="Ashermusic @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:15 am"][quote:f7ff38d81d="Jack Weaver @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:27 am"][ò«   Êû÷«   Êûø«   Êûù«   Êûú«   Êûû«   Êûü«   Êûý«   Êûþ«   Êûÿ«   Êü «   Êü«   Êü«   Êü«   Êü«   Êü«   Êü«   Êü«   Êü«   Êü	«   Êü
«   Êü«   Êü«   Êü «   Êü4«   Êü5«   Êü6«   Êü7«   Êü8«   Êü9«   Êü:«   Êü;«   Êü<«   Êü=«   Êü>«   Êü?«   Êü@«   ÊüA«   ÊüB«   ÊüC«   ÊüD«   ÊüE«   ÊüF«   ÊüG«   ÊüH«   ÊüI«   ÊüJ«   ÊüK«   ÊüL«   ÊüM«


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 25, 2010)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> > I read a MSNBC poll on Tuesday (yes, I read & watch MSNBC) and 67.3% of Americans on MSNBC(!) said they were ‘Angry’ about this bill. A CBS poll today reported 62% of Americans who want the Republicans to continue to fight this bill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jack, I think the problem is, that channels like FOX made everything look much worse than it actually is. I think if there would have been fair and balanced reporting on the health care issue, things would look much different. FOX for example clearly tried to scare people ('the end of the USA I know', 'this is the road to socialism' tings like that), especially Glenn Beck (not to mention Rush Limbaugh)

For someone outside the USA it really looks like the republican were seeking revenge for the lost election, rather than focusing on real issues.


----------



## George Caplan (Mar 25, 2010)

jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> 1. How can ANY insurance company survive if they are not allowed to reject NEW customers with pre-existing conditions? If I can buy insurance on the way to the hospital, why would anyone ever buy insurance before hand? It is a logical impossibility for insurance companies to exist under these conditions.



thats an excellent point and it should be noted that most insurance companies are giant ponzi schemes in any case.



jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> 2. Please explain how this bill reduces the cost of health insurance AND increases quality. If you truly believe that, you live in a world of "puppies and rainbows". It is a logical impossibility that adding millions more people to the Medicare system will not lead to the rationing of healthcare. That is a reality in every other socialized medical system.



youre right. it wont increase quality. straight logic.



jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> 4. All the great medications that have extended the lives of many people I know were developed here in the United States, NOT Europe.



incorrect on this one. 



jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> 5. Why was Bush's deficit spending "bad", but when Barak increases the deficit at an even greater rate, it's "good". I know that they don't teach math in public schools anymore, but it's impossible to "spend more" to get out of debt.



its a good point but bush was an idiot. rep public expenditure is always structured differently to dem p/e.



jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> 6. Barack Obama said that he doesn't believe in "big government". Please explain how Barack Obama has made government smaller.



liberal governments always do the same thing. if you compare the present US gov with the uk incumbent government there are many similarities thus far. if you take that to its natural conclusion you will notice that the uk gov are in hock to the tune of £167 billion sterling with an election looming. the same thing will happen in the states one way or another if they dont watch out.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

I'm a little disappointed at the lack of information in this thread posted by the people against healthcare reform.

Dynamitec said pretty much everything I want to say. Obviously he's a highly intelligent man. 

The big point to underline: why are so many Americans opposed to the healthcare bill (never mind that the polls are a) irrelevant and transitory, b) changing as Obama *explains* what's in the bill)?

Answer: BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN LIED TO REPEATEDLY BY CYNICAL REPUBLICAN CREEPS to the point that they didn't know that the bill - imperfect as it is - is in almost everyone's best interest!

Jack, have you read David Frum's editorial? JohnG pointed it out to me first. He seems to be the one Republican who gets the real lesson to be learned (from the point of view of a thinking conservative rather than a teabag moron):

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspx (http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blog ... erloo.aspx)

By the way, I don't know how you can possibly defend the behavior of those crowds. Pointing at out-of-control liberal crowds is lame. No thinking person is in favor of violence.

Now, I'd argue that the right is full of people inciting that stuff up to the very top, but come on. These people are idiots, whether or not you agree with their ideas.


----------



## George Caplan (Mar 25, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> The big point to underline: why are so many Americans opposed to the healthcare bill (never mind that the polls are a) irrelevant and transitory, b) changing as Obama *explains* what's in the bill).



i certainly am not against it. but i am against reckless spending in the public sector. probably down to my job at GS and the amount of time spent on analyzing psb requirements.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

This isn't reckless spending, George, it's vitally important spending.

@P.T.: You're right about one thing, and that's that the basic psychology behind the teabag morons is the same as the Nazi supporters. These people are afraid of the complexities and uncertainties in life, and they channel that fear into simplistic ideas that are easy to understand. It's all taxes, Jews, illegal aliens....what's the difference. Exploiting them is easy for Hitler or Dick Armey (I'm not calling him a Nazi, just a big fat f-ing asshole).

The difference is that bad as things are, we're not living in the same world as post-WWI Germany; the Great Recession is not the Great Depression. I do find these populist types frightening, though. They're not Nazis, but they're very stupid and angry.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

> 1. How can ANY insurance company survive if they are not allowed to reject NEW customers with pre-existing conditions? If I can buy insurance on the way to the hospital, why would anyone ever buy insurance before hand? It is a logical impossibility for insurance companies to exist under these conditions.
> 
> 
> thats an excellent point and it should be noted that most insurance companies are giant ponzi schemes in any case.



It is NOT an excellent point, it's a blatant misunderstanding.

Really, I have to scold you people for not reading about this bill before posting like you have.

The answer to the question is that the healthy people in the pool pay for the sick people. That's the reason everyone has to buy insurance; if it weren't required, healthy people wouldn't buy it.

And while I'm not a fan of insurance companies for the most part, I hope you understand the difference between Ponzi schemes and risk-pooling.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

"Don't you think it's cool that the Gov't is now taking over the student loan industry? "

Jack,

But you make it sound so "dirty"! 

I met you and I know that you're smart enough to know that the Government is cutting out an unnecessary and costly middle-man. That's the problem you see? Guys who should know better, and instead choose to promote this type of cynicism just because they're not aligned with the current Government...it's partisan politics and nothing more. 

I also think it's a shame that the word "industry" is paired up with the words "student" and "loan"....really really sad.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> "Don't you think it's cool that the Gov't is now taking over the student loan industry? "
> 
> Jack,



Student loans have always been government backed. Where have you been man? I'm an expert on Student Loans. Got all my student loans from Sallie Mae. You know the company that was started by the Government. Then went private. Was completely mismanaged then begged for the government to save them. Yeah, that Sallie Mae.

90% of student loans are federally guaranteed student loans.

So again man. Where do you get your info?


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

1. I agree that health insurance should be affordable for everyone. However, I do not subscribe to the idea the government has any place in this business or any other business activity. The U.S. Constitition was written to limit GOVERNMENT, not its citizens. The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. Liberty and freedom are things I deeply value. I also fell that it is dehumanizing to not allow people to suffer the consequences of their stupid actions. It renders people as perpetual adolesents. I understand that the Europeans do not understand our "cowboy" individualism, but the empowerment of individuals is what has made the American experiment different than any other democracy in the world.

There are things that can be done to reduce costs, but Democrats were unwilling to limit the profits of malpractice attorneys who fund their campaigns. Something as simple as "loser pays" would cure 99% of the frivolous lawsuits that doctors have to deal with. It would also end all the needless defensive medicine, i.e., ordering unncessary tests so that they have evidence in the event of a possible lawsuit. 
They were also unwilling to let market forces do their work. 

If health insurance were just for catostrophic events, like all other forms of insurance, ALL medical costs would go down. Automobile insurance is very analogous. If I had insurance that covered tires, oil changes, light bulbs, brakes, etc., the insurance would be enormously expensive and the cost of fixing these items would likely go very high because they would not be subject to normal market competion. As it is right now, my car insurance only covers crashes, so it's very reasonable, and I can get an oil change for $9.95 at many different places. 

2. You do not care that costs will not go down? This country is rapidly heading toward banckruptcy. The U.S. is already borrowing money to pay the interest on its debt. When the government becomes bankrupt, no one will have health care. But the left values "equality" and as long as everyone is equally miserable, that's OK.

3. I don't watch Glen Beck, but I seriously doubt that he said the that U.S. has the best health INSURANCE in the world. We do have the best health care system in the world. Canadian Premier Danny Williams decided to go to Florida in February to get his heart surgery performed because the procedures in the U.S. are superior to those in Canada.

4. Thank you for being honest enough to admit that socialism leads to fraud.

5. In terms of creating NEW medications (not ancient penecillin) the United States is clearly the leader in creating new pharmaceuticals. See this: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content-nw/full/25/2/452/T2 (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... 5/2/452/T2) Between 1993-2003, 437 new drugs were introduced around the world. America was responsible for 152 of them, Japan coming in second with 88 and Germany a distant third with 42. Here in the U.S. we see more TV commercials advertising new medications than we see for new cars.

6. Global warming is a hoax and everyone knows it now. It is as much as religion as Catholicism or Islam and it clearly has no scientific basis. The vast majority of Americans do not support wasting ANY money on this nonsense. Jobs and reducing the debt are much higher priorities in the minds of Americans.

7. I would guess that you do not have a deep knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, nor do I know anything about European governments. The U.S. constitution requires that legislation pass the senate by 61 votes, not 51 votes. The tactics used by Nancy Mussolini were as dirty as you can make them. They may be suitable for Chavez or Castro, but not the U.S. 

In 2005 Barack Obama said, of reconciliation, "What I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian, absolute power on either side. And that's just not what the founders intended." in 2005 Joe Biden said, "This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab. I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. And I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing." I'm glad that they are men of principle.

I am sincerely worried that the country will swing too far to the right to counteract the "fundamental changing of America". This country has never been more divided, certainly not in my lifetime. I hope that civility and the Constitution ultimately prevail regardless of who is in power at the moment.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

Jsaras,

You're just spewing out misinformation left and right and it's really not helping. Seriously, consider taking a course in Civics to get up to speed on how the government is supposed to operate instead of pulling stuff out of your own ass to make your point. Nothing that you have just said is even remotely factual.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 25, 2010)

*Guaranteed *by the gov't not completely controlled and distributed.

Banks are FDIC guaranteed for customer savings and checking accounts up to a certain limited but not controlled. (Well, until recently anyway.)

But look guys, I realize you have a different vision of this country. I fundamentally disagree with your conclusions. 

.

Edit:
*Why don't you guys list what the gov't should take over and what they should leave to the public sector?* That way we will have some basis to continue our discussion.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 25, 2010)

jsars your arguments would make a lot of sense if it wasn't for reality. I don't like government involved in business either, but you're forgetting that just last year, most of our major banks were in trouble, most of our auto industry was in trouble and our student loan industry went under. Government getting involved both sides agreed last year was almost a necessity. 

Our constitution was written as a guiding principle of government. Thomas Jefferson stated that it was up to each generation to apply those basic principles to the needs of the time. He also stated that in times of emergency, should the constitution need to be abandoned that it should be gotten back on track as soon as possible. So it's a flexible document not an absolute one.

As far as insurance have you ever worked for a hospital? They are having a tough time because insurance companies are refusing to pay. They are squeezing the hospitals to death. In actual fact I truly believe that right now if it were not for Federal, state and local dollars that most hospitals would have gone bankrupt by now. HMO's and PPO's are bleeding the hospitals dry. That's why hospitals are for reform. The only ones who really lobbied against it are the drug and insurance companies of which I have no sympathy for.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

I fundamentally believe in a highly Government regulated private sector, mostly because until now the only thing that the private corporations have demonstrated is that they are driven by greed and not a desire to genuinely run a fair business.

There is a lot of talk about distrust towards the Government, but where is the distrust towards the private sector? Do we forget that this country has been brought to the brink of ruin by private interest and not governmental ones (not just Wall Street, but scandalous abuses from Hally Burton, Blackwater, and who knows how many we don't yet know about).

Until the private industry can demonstrate that they're willing to behave in a socially responsible manner with an eye on the overall good and not just their bottom line, I think the Government will need to step in and take away the "keys" from time to time.

We have seen a ridiculous amount of corporate abuse and now it's only logical that the Government expands their reach to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen again.

Does that answer your question?


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> Jsaras,
> 
> You're just spewing out misinformation left and right and it's really not helping. Seriously, consider taking a course in Civics to get up to speed on how the government is supposed to operate instead of pulling stuff out of your own ass to make your point. Nothing that you have just said is even remotely factual.



I'm calling you out on this. Please specifically point out where I am factually incorrect. Dismissing everything a person says by calling them stupid is condescending beyond belief. I refuse to be stereotyped as a "dumb independent".


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2010)

When my bank account starts running low and I get concerned would that qualify as racist paranoia? I don't have a monumental emotional breakdown (like I see from some here) and start accusing everybody of this and that. I have a logical concern about a a physical problem of money, cash flow etc.

This is most Americans concern (including ending soaring HC costs: i.e. they want reform.) Just because people are not all yahoo about this particular bill is not the slightest blight on their character or any indication of shallow, narrow thinking.

I see as much shallow, narrow, reactionary, knee jerk, biased thinking here as I do anywhere. People get broad brushed as racist because they have questions about legislation? WTF!? It's the American system folks. Why all the intolerance? All intolerant people think they are right and want to accuse and silence their opponent.

What should we do with ALL these so-called racist people? Gas them?


----------



## José Herring (Mar 25, 2010)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> *Guaranteed *by the gov't not completely controlled and distributed.
> 
> Banks are FDIC guaranteed for customer savings and checking accounts up to a certain limited but not controlled. (Well, until recently anyway.)
> 
> ...



Nah, they are more than just guaranteed. The money for these loans actually comes from the government. If you look at your student loan statements you'll see that sallie mae was just kind of a fund manager. They were not a bank. They didn't issue loans. They got the money from the government then distributed government money. Please don't forget that Sallie Mae started out as a government institution.

And no we're not all commies with a socialist vision for America. I just think that the Right is way, way, way misinformed and fighting a fight of ideals and not really looking at the truth. 

The right seems to believe that mankind is ethical enough that free enterprise can run amok without any laws or rules and that somehow market forces will magically balance things out. I don't think it's communist or socialist to think that that's a pipe dream. Nor do I think government putting up regulations is socialist. 

But, I do agree that government must be kept in check. Just how that's done is still kind of up in the air. But, what I do know is that in the 30 years that we've practiced conservative government either from the Executive branch or the legislative branch things have gotten really, really out of control. I'm sorry, but I hate it more than anybody, but mankind in this day and age needs to be control. He can't be made to run free without rules of the game. Unfortunately the only thing we have that sets rules is the government. Really unfortunate but a reality.

Jose


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> .... until now the only thing that the private corporations have demonstrated is that they are driven by greed and not a desire to genuinely run a fair business.
> 
> There is a lot of talk about distrust towards the Government, but where is the distrust towards the private sector?/quote]
> 
> And politicians and governments are NOT driven by greed, lust and all the other lower parts of human nature? C'mon, you can't really believe that.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> I fundamentally believe in a highly Government regulated private sector


Regulation is important. But the same human nature is in both sectors. History shows governments have as bad a track record as any institution in corruption and oppression. Look at the corruption in the US government even now. Jefferson and co., knew this so they tried to restrain the power of government. "Highly regulated" would not fly with the founders. Regulation should be imposed when there is persistent violation of basic rights and even then by consensus from the people.

Edit: jsaras and I simultaneously posted the exact point about the same twisted (human) nature in government and private sectors. Must be an obvious point.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 25, 2010)

If our " leaders " would have worked out the details of Medicare and Social Security by having a 2500 page plan they could have seen that poeple will live longer and have the benefit and retirement age raised according to the Census, that would have provided the information on the population of the elderly, and their various stats.
This new Bill sucks because it was written by lawyers and politicians instead of medical proffessionals.
In time this might end up being a bill even the naysayers will use and like.

Instead of people arguing and fighting, which by the way is exactly the sole purpose of the profit driven media, we should be contacting our leaders and telling them since they do NOT know how to spend money we want Medical Proffessionals at least consulting and ACCOUNTABILITY......
I can see that some folks here think DC politicians are stupid because they can't apply accounting properly, but trust me, these scoundrels know exactly what they're doing.
You have politicians buying beachfront property and stashing cash in their freezers, it doesn't take a genius to figure out when you want to rob a bank, you go to DC, You can steal money all day long and break laws, cheat on your wives, etc. And not once worry about the law being applied as they are above the laws.
Its us stupid serfs and commoners that have to do as we are told not them.
At least in England they call their leaders the House Of Lords.
We prefer politically correct names so we don't hurt anyones feelings.

The Bill Has Passed.
If you want it to benfit you speak up, contact your representives and become involved.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

"And politicians and governments are NOT driven by greed, lust and all the other lower parts of human nature? C'mon, you can't really believe that."

I believe that greed has infiltrated the government primarily BECAUSE of the private sector (ie. lobbying groups). I also believe that governments, unlike the private sector, are ultimately being held accountable by voters who can withdraw their support and vote for the opposition. On the other hand, you try and do without a privatized monopoly (like health insurance) and you're screwed.

There is no doubt that a major overhaul of the system is needed, hopefully this is just the beginning.

Of course guys who shout "give me back my America" are not exactly fostering an atmosphere which would make it possible for such an overhaul to take place.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

Jack, the difference between you and me is that you're an ideologue. You want to shape reality to fit your preconceived idea that government is an unnecessary evil (maybe I'm overstating it, but that's the basic idea).

Except that we live in the real world, in which monopolies and all the other 'opolies are the norm; pure laissez-faire capitalism has never worked. Therefore it's to the good of our society to have a government that can do big things *when necessary.*

And in this case, with health insurance, it's absolutely necessary, just as it was when the auto industry faced collapse. The financial industry, much as I hate to admit it, also had to be saved (although it wasn't done in the right way).

After all, the unregulated system of health insurance had been tried; the whole point of this was because it wasn't working. Just leaving our nation's healthcare in the hands of people out to make as much money in as short a time as possible doesn't work. Healthcare has nothing to do with a free market.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/ ... rs/?hpt=T1


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

chimuelo @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> I can see that some folks here think DC politicians are stupid because they can't apply accounting properly, but trust me, these scoundrels know exactly what they're doing.
> You have politicians buying beachfront property and stashing cash in their freezers, it doesn't take a genius to figure out when you want to rob a bank, you go to DC.



You are painfully correct on that. It's like to collapse of the old Soviet Union. The politicans are raiding the corpse for what little is left.


----------



## _taylor (Mar 25, 2010)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schn ... 13608.html


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> jsars your arguments would make a lot of sense if it wasn't for reality.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson stated that it was up to each generation to apply those basic principles to the needs of the time. He also stated that in times of emergency, should the constitution need to be abandoned that it should be gotten back on track as soon as possible. So it's a flexible document not an absolute one.
> 
> As far as insurance have you ever worked for a hospital? They are having a tough time because insurance companies are refusing to pay.



1. Jefferson never supported abandoning the Constitution in an emergency or for any other reason. He wanted to suspend habeas corpus when Aaron Burr conspired to form a new country by seizing territory near New Orleans, but he stated he did not have the authority to do so and suggested that Congress exercise its right to suspend habeas corpus.

2. The Constitution is the absolute law of the land. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of powerful aristocrats (well, we used to be..). If the rules can be changed at any point because they're inconvenient, then you have no rules. 

3. Doctors are refusing to accept new Medicare patients because of low reimbursement, NOT insurance patients. 

Reality indeed!


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> "
> Of course guys who shout "give me back my America" are not exactly fostering an atmosphere which would make it possible for such an overhaul to take place.



Thank God for that!


----------



## TuwaSni (Mar 25, 2010)

If you check out the changes in Medicare under the proposed reform - then you'll understand why so many people are against it. The majority of the people in the US are either at or about to be eligible for Medicare.
It appears that the reform has been so divergently convoluted by the direction of the healthcare industry that it does little but cut benefits for Medicare recipients, create a "you must" for coverage for people that can't afford it and will only serve to make doctors, hospitals and HMOs much wealthier. Not a good plan. Yes - reform is needed - but reform that actually makes healthcare MORE accessable for those who aren't modestly affluent - not LESS accessable.
Anyway - what has this to do with VI's?


----------



## TuwaSni (Mar 25, 2010)

jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Mar 25 said:
> 
> 
> > jsars your arguments would make a lot of sense if it wasn't for reality.
> ...



actually - check your history - the Constitution was set aside in the 1930s during the Depression as some of FDR's programs weren't brought about in exactly constitutional ways as expedience was of greatest importance. It would be interesting to see if it ever was officially re-instated.
Certain things ought not to be businesses - and healthcare is one of them -


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 25, 2010)

Hi jsaras,

I assume that your post was directed at me. So I'm going to respond 



> 1. I agree that health insurance should be affordable for everyone. However, I do not subscribe to the idea the government has any place in this business or any other business activity. The U.S. Constitition was written to limit GOVERNMENT, not its citizens. The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. Liberty and freedom are things I deeply value. I also fell that it is dehumanizing to not allow people to suffer the consequences of their stupid actions. It renders people as perpetual adolesents. I understand that the Europeans do not understand our "cowboy" individualism, but the empowerment of individuals is what has made the American experiment different than any other democracy in the world.



One big problem is, that a limited government will gives some individuals much more power over other indiviuals, which again makes those individuals smaller. If you believe in liberty and freedom, it doesn't fit that there might be other individuals who will limit you in your liberty and freedom. And if there won't be a regulating government, those big individuals will have much more power! Take a look at the warlords in Africa for example. Most of the states haven't had a working government for years and it's pure chaos. Powerful individuals who won't get regulated by anyone will almost always abuse their power.

And I really don't want to offend you, but this "cowboy" individualism simply doesn't seem to work anymore. Wasn't it the "cowboy" individualism which allowed some guys on wall street to almost bring the world economy to a total collapse? It certainly were empowered individuals who acted without responsibility to anyone.
And after that they crawled back like a child who knows it has done something bad, crying for help (Unfortunately it was Obama they crawled to, not to the guys who 
always wanted deregulation and passed the bills before Obama was elected).



> 2. You do not care that costs will not go down? This country is rapidly heading toward bankruptcy. The U.S. is already borrowing money to pay the interest on its debt. When the government becomes bankrupt, no one will have health care. But the left values "equality" and as long as everyone is equally miserable, that's OK.



Health care is important, no matter what it costs. The reasons the country is rapidly heading toward bankruptcy doesn't have anything to do with the health care bill at all.

A lifestyle of "buy now, pay later" over years, a car industry building cars only for "cowboy" individualists, several wars in the name of democracy, to much lobbying -those are some reasons the system doesn't work anymore. I don't think the poor should be those who suffer because of the wrong decisions rich and powerful people made. And this brings me back to your first point: you need a reasonable government to prevent those people from making decision which won't affect them very much, but the poor ones.



> 3. I don't watch Glen Beck, but I seriously doubt that he said the that U.S. has the best health INSURANCE in the world. We do have the best health care system in the world. Canadian Premier Danny Williams decided to go to Florida in February to get his heart surgery performed because the procedures in the U.S. are superior to those in Canada.



You are right, he said the US has the best health care system in the world. But first I don't think that's the case and second even it it was, it doesn't help all those
who can't afford it (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html - it's 10 years old, haven't found an current one quickly - but anyway, how many European countries do you see before the USA)



> 4. Thank you for being honest enough to admit that socialism leads to fraud.



Sure! But as long as human beings are involved there will be fraud. In any system.



> 5. In terms of creating NEW medications (not ancient penecillin) the United States is clearly the leader in creating new pharmaceuticals. See this: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content-nw/full/25/2/452/T2 (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... 5/2/452/T2) Between 1993-2003, 437 new drugs were introduced around the world. America was responsible for 152 of them, Japan coming in second with 88 and Germany a distant third with 42. Here in the U.S. we see more TV commercials advertising new medications than we see for new cars.



OK, you've got a point. But you are aware that pharmaceuticals aren't the only thing you need in medicare? What about the development of X Ray, CT, PET, MRT, FMRT and other technologies? 



> 6. Global warming is a hoax and everyone knows it now. It is as much as religion as Catholicism or Islam and it clearly has no scientific basis. The vast majority of Americans do not support wasting ANY money on this nonsense. Jobs and reducing the debt are much higher priorities in the minds of Americans.



No comment... if you think so. 

OK, I have to comment: If the the raising temperature (caused by humans or not) causes the poles to melt and the salt concentration in the oceans declines there won't be a gulf stream anymore which might lead to another ice age. Which is only one of the possible scenarios in which it doesn't matter if you have a job or your government has debts. Again: I don't have all the data (and even if I had it, I won't understand it) so I can't be sure if humans caused the global warming, but fact is that the poles are melting. And that something has to be done to find a way to prevent that. And blowing CO2 into the air and toxic waste into the water certainly doesn't help a bit.
Not to mention "drill, baby drill".



> 7. I would guess that you do not have a deep knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, nor do I know anything about European governments. The U.S. constitution requires that legislation pass the senate by 61 votes, not 51 votes. The tactics used by Nancy Mussolini were as dirty as you can make them. They may be suitable for Chavez or Castro, but not the U.S.




Have you read my post? I wrote "That only a majority (instead of a super majority)" which should have made clear that I know the difference between a majority and a super majority. I understand that. Go search for yourself: in the past the democrats used the reconciliation process 8 times, republicans 14 times. So much for 
"slimiest political tactics". 

BTW. the U.S. constitution (also the school and judicial system) is taught in History and English Class in Germany. 

This is what I find funny: you say, that I don't know anything about your system, since you don't know anything about ours. 
But you are sure, that there is no global warming and that the U.S. health care system is the best in the world? 
Tell me, how does your system compare to the health care system in Germany? Or Sweden? (Or to keep inside the U.S., what's different on Hawaii?)



> This country has never been more divided, certainly not in my lifetime.



Maybe not in your lifetime. But what about the civil war? Slavery? Segregation? 

Anyway, back to the presence: the country is divided by feelings, not by facts. That's the problem at moment - in my opinion.

Cheers,
Benjamin


----------



## José Herring (Mar 25, 2010)

jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Mar 25 said:
> 
> 
> > jsars your arguments would make a lot of sense if it wasn't for reality.
> ...



That's where the conservative arguments fall on their ass. In the real world there are no absolutes. Everything requires judgment. Where you have an absolute you have no judgment. In absence of judgment you have a belief system. You can't reason in a belief system.

The constitution is the guiding philosophy of this nation. Yes you are right it is the highest law of this land, but then again no where in the constitution does it say that government can't regulate private business. It actually says the opposite. I'll quote it for you as I can see that you probably don't know the document all that well:

_Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;*
*
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;*

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

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

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

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

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

Notice the statements in bold and realize that the conservative argument is just a bunch of bullshit.

Jose


edit: I just had to repeat this one line for emphasis

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

Oh this line is just too good. I have to repeat it again. ALL TOGETHER NOW..... 


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

( So glad that our founding fathers were much smarter than conservatives or we'd be in a lot of trouble.)


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

Dynamitec @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> If the the raising temperature (caused by humans or not) causes the poles to melt and the salt concentration in the oceans declines there won't be a gulf stream anymore which might lead to another ice age.



1. Hmm, so the earth getting colder and warmer? It seems that you have a non-disprovable hypothesis. That's quite a theory, because no matter what happens, it's true!

I have to chuckle a bit when the leftists changed terms from "global warming" to "climate change". They fooled no one except themselves. All the drummed up hysteria is based on warming, not cooling. If the earth is getting cooler, nobody cares and/or all the "fixes" being proposed to fix global warming should stop immediately and everyone should be forced to drive the largest SUV possible. 

The fact that all the science is fake cannot be disputed anymore.

2. Back to greed. Yes, slimy people in business AND government were responsible for our problems. Barney Frank should be in prison...but he would enjoy it.

3. I have no problem with wealthy individuals as long as they gained their money ethically. I hope to be one of those guys very soon!

4. I actually agree with you about the country being divided by "feelings" not "facts". In generaly, the liberal mindset is governed by what "feels good" (free health care for everyone!) and not facts (health care and the nation's economy will suffer irreparable harm). There is very little "stage two" thinking.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 25, 2010)

And sorry to pile on, but there is nothing in the Constitution about a 60 vote majority in the Senate. 

The 60 vote level is not a level to pass a law, but the level needed to stop debate and force immediate action on a specific matter -- in other words, to block a filibuster. This is a Senate rule, not a Constitutional issue.

Interesting history from Wikipedia:

_n response to the actions of isolationist senators who attempted to talk out, or filibuster, a bill to arm U.S. merchant ships. President Woodrow Wilson urged the Senate to change its rules to thwart what he called a "little group of willful men", to which the Senate responded by introducing cloture in the form of Rule 22 on March 8, 1917.[1] Cloture was invoked for the first time on November 15, 1919,[2] during the 66th Congress, to end filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.[3]

The cloture rule originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof.[4][5] For example, if all 100 Senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor.[6] However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by Senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.[7]

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those Senators "present and voting" to those Senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. (For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would only take 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.) [6]

The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. This has considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered. (The Democratic Party had held a two-thirds majority in the 89th Congress of 1965, but regional divisions among Democrats meant that many filibusters were invoked by Southern Democrats against civil rights bills supported by the Northern wing of the party.) Some senators wanted to reduce it to a simple majority (51 out of 100) but this was rejected, as it would greatly diminish the ability of the minority to check the majority.

[edit]Procedure
The three-fifths version of the cloture rule does not apply to motions to end filibusters relating to Senate Rule changes. To invoke cloture to end debate over changing the Senate Rules, the original version of the rule (two-thirds of those Senators "present and voting") still applies.[8]

The procedure for "invoking cloture," or ending a filibuster, is as follows:

A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator's speech.
The clerk reads the petition.
The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Monday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)
On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a "quorum call" is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present.
The President of the Senate or President pro tempore presents the petition.
The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority.
After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:

No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.[9]
No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
Certain procedural motions are not permissible.
The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.__

The "60 vote requirement" is another canard that conservatives have been repeating in order to imply that the health care vote was somehow illegal. It wasn't, though maybe it wasn't very gentlemanly or something. The reconciliation gambit has been used by both Democrats and Republicans, as someone else pointed out._


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

[quote="josejherring @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:15 pm
_*
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;*_


> I never said that the government is not to regulate business. The government should not BE in the business of making cars or building hospitals or being an insurance company.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

> The fact that all the science is fake cannot be disputed anymore



The fact is that that is not a fact.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 25, 2010)

jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> [quote="josejherring @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:15 pm
> _*
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;*_
> 
> ...



They aren't. So what's your point?


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 25, 2010)

Hi jsaras,
I'm quite enjoying this debate. But quite frankly you are answering a little bit like a conservative caricature. I can't help but have to respond.

You are using pure polemic and simply wrong generalizations! >8o 



> 1. Hmm, so the earth getting colder and warmer? It seems that you have a non-disprovable hypothesis. That's quite a theory, because no matter what happens, it's true!



Help me, in which point can this theory not be falsified? It's simply not true that no matter what happens, the scenario will be the same.

Ok, let me try a few questions:

1) Your fridge is cold inside, why is the back warm?
2) Why is it getting hotter the colder you set the temperature inside?
3) If you leave your fridge open is it getting colder or warmer in your kitchen?
4) Is it so hard to understand that something getting hot might lead to something else getting cold? 

Back to the topic: 
1) Do you understand how CO2 or FCKW or gases like that affect the atmosphere?
2) Do you know the term galloping greenhouse effect?
3) Do you know what climate there is on Venus and why it is so hot there? 
4) Do you know why the gulf stream is so important?
5) Do you know how the gulf stream depends on the concentration of salt water?
6) Do you know that the melting sweet water of the poles will change this concentration?
7) Are you aware that the Sahara once was green and had a rich population of plants, humans and animals?
8) Are you aware that the first 'Americans' (Europeans and Asians as well) came from there ten thousands of years ago because the climate changed and they couldn't live in the Sahara anymore?
9) Are you aware that the total population of mankind was very small compared to the population today?
9) Are you aware what the consequences of a climate change today would mean? Countries with very high populations might become deserts (either sand or ice,). Can you imagine what chaos there would be?
10) Do you now understand why the earth getting hot could cause regions to get cold and the other way around? Just like it's now cold one the south pole while it might be hot in CA (and that one the same earth?!)

Don't you think this is something everybody should care about since everybody is affected by it?



> The fact that all the science is fake cannot be disputed anymore.



So an apple falls into the sky, because all science is fake and Newton was wrong?



> 4. I actually agree with you about the country being divided by "feelings" not "facts". In generaly, the liberal mindset is governed by what "feels good" (free health care for everyone!) and not facts (health care and the nation's economy will suffer irreparable harm). There is very little "stage two" thinking.



Actually, I didn't mean it that way. I meant that one half of the country is trying to think rational while the other half, don't like it, because it feels 'wrong' or scary.

Cheers,
Benjamin


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> > The fact that all the science is fake cannot be disputed anymore
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that that is not a fact.



Just google "ClimateGate". Hundred of emails that expose the global warming scam were made public. No amount of ignoring this story or repeating the lie of global warming will make global warming true. 

The fact that the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference was held in the midst of a blizzard is sure evidence that God has a sense of humor. But hey "weather isn't climate"!?!


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 25, 2010)

Oh man, I give up. 
Global warming can also lead to drastic weather, hotter summers, colder winters in the beginning. It can cause more hurricans, more tornados. It can't be really predicted. There are probabilities for different scenarios. 
But again: one thing is obvious: the poles are melting (or is this a scam as well?) and it's likely that humans add their part by releasing CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

Oh, btw. have you read the hundred of mails of the global warming scam? What's in those?


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

Dynamitec @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> > 1) Your fridge is cold inside, why is the back warm?



I just put my hand on the back of both of my refrigerators; it's cold on the front, back and sides. I'd try putting my hand underneath, but I'm not strong enough to lift a refrigerator on my own.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

I think that if the Tea Party wanted to really change things and be taken seriously, they should do the following things:

• Don't be so angry....seriously! There's nothing to be angry that people shouldn't have been angry about with the Reagan administration (which raised taxes for example), or any other administration for that matter (although Nixon and Bush do take the cake for pissing all over this country and doing it with a smile). Obama is not the revolutionary that the Tea Party paints him to be, he has no interest in taking guns away, banishing religion, or renaming Washington Marxtown. Stop with the anger.

• Get rid of your members that display highly racist, anti-semitic, or intolerant signs with or without veiled threats. Seriously, if you're a Tea Party member and you see someone at a rally with a picture of Obama hanging from a noose, you should voice your disapproval and ask that person to leave. Remember, hateful signs or signs with the intent to harm or incite violence are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

• Ask for more transparency in government, and promise to align yourself with whichever party will give it to you...Democrats or Republicans...whichever one comes to your table first.

• Ask for all potential candidates to be equally represented during campaigning, and above all, demand campaign reform which limits involvement of corporations or private interest groups. There is no reason why guys like Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich should be ostricized by the parties in favor of "safer bets"

• Demand the end of lobbyist. Pure and simple! You really want a government "for the people by the people"? Well....start getting those lobbyist out of your affairs.

• Accept that Taxes are not the problem. The issue is simply that your taxes are not being managed as well as they should. 


Of course I'm totally dreaming if I think the Tea Party will even consider one of the above points, which to me confirms that they are really not interested in fixing the real problems as much as they're interested in restoring a white conservative (preferably male) to power.


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 25, 2010)

jsaras @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> Dynamitec @ Thu Mar 25 said:
> 
> 
> > > 1) Your fridge is cold inside, why is the back warm?
> ...



Wow, your fridge is able to destroy energy! If we had enough fridges like that, we could destroy some of the energy the sun is sending to us and stop the greenhouse effect.

If only energy could be destroyed...

PS: Sorry, Kays, for being off topic (since you got back to topic with your last post)


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

JohnG @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> The reconciliation gambit has been used by both Democrats and Republicans, as someone else pointed out.



Reconciliation has been used by both sides mostly to quickly pass things that had bipartisan support and a super-majority of 60 votes. It has never been used in this partisan a fashion. Otherwise ,why wouldn't all legistlation be done this way? Reconciliation has never been used to ammend a bill that was pending in Congress that had not passed.

If the Republicans ever pull this vile trickery on the Democrats in the future I don't want to hear a single "peep" about it.


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 25, 2010)

Now you are making me angry. You are spreading wrongs facts. Clear and simple wrong.

Reconciliation almost ALWAYS has be used in votes which were highly partisan:
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/03/03/a-brief-history-of-senate-reconciliation-votes/

In fact it was bi-partisan in only 4 cases of 20.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

There you go again Jsaras...pulling your info out of your ass:

Republicans employed the same Reconciliation procedure to pass major Bush agenda items (without a supermajority):

– The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
– The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
– Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
– The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]


A list of instances where reconciliation was implemented:

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> • Accept that Taxes are not the problem. The issue is simply that your taxes are not being managed as well as they should.
> 
> 
> > Taxes ARE the problem!!!!! Let me ask you as simple question. At what rate of taxation would you say that the goverment has overstepped its boundaries? Please give me a specific percentage. This is a moral issue.
> ...


----------



## jsaras (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> There you go again Jsaras...pulling your info out of your ass:
> 
> Dear midphase,
> 
> ...


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 25, 2010)

The reason why you have Union Members standing around with signs protesting is becasue they have a strike fund and are out of work.
The Tea Party folks are also out of work, but their backers have money and nothing better to do.
To believe either of these groups of " protesters " as being built up from nothing is a joke.

200 Million Americans are Middle Class and the silent majority who believe in liberal as well as conservative values.
Why do think politicians cater to them during a campaign..?
The silent majority doesn't believe in a big Government but is wise enough to realize that Capitalism creates poverty, so to pay taxes that benefit the less fortunate is the American way.
Again this left/right, black/white, hispanic/jewish catagorizing is divisive but yet our media profits from the divisions created by Washington and the elite media moguls.
Its sad to see so many Americans falling for this.
Reminds me of how my Brother ran off to Vietnam when I was a little boy because of the stench our government and media created, and here 40 years later, so many here have learned nothing.

Hey lets save the Planet tonight and all of us shut our DAW's down for 8 hours. Afterall Humans can now stop the Suns Solar Flares and keep the Earth from shifting it's axis every 3rd pass around the Sun..............
Well thats what I learned from the guys that fly Huge Jets around by themselves and have Limousines drive them to a confernece of 2000+ of other Limousine Chauffered Climate Experts.....


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

"Let me frame this on a micro-level. Let's say we all live in a cul-de-sac. We all have two cars in our garages, but you have twelve cars because your business is doing well and you just like cars. The residents of the cul-de-sacall take a vote and decide that you have too many cars and take nine of them away. I call that "stealing"."

Jsaras....I don't know who you are...but I do think you're out of your mind. How about I stop using 6th grade language when you stop reasoning like a 6th grader?

I really don't get your analogy, it makes no sense nor does it reflect the way the government behaves.

A flat tax also makes no sense to me. Let's say we have a 20% flat tax. 

Are you reasoning that a household with a $20k/year combined income can withstand a $4k tax fee the same way that a $200k/year household can withstand a $40k tax fee? (please please please say "yes" and confirm to me and everyone else that you're out of your mind).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

The problem with flat taxes is that it shifts the tax burden down, not up where it belongs.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 25, 2010)

Divide & Conquer... 


The establishment is worried...



I'm sorry i try to hold it in but this breaks my heart and angers me quiet a bit.
I just hope nobody gets hurt...


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2010)

No one is talking about States Rights. Everyone is talking about the Federal Government. It's suppose to be The United States. I don't think people are even slightly aware of how far we have moved from the founders vision. The 13 colonies barely came together they were so wary of consolidating power. The original mandate of the federal government was so incredibly limited compared to today.

Would you rather have a single state go bust because of it's economic policies such as California is now? The 7th largest economy in the world! Or an entire nation due to the policies of a single body?

People don't understand that the Constitution was designed to stop good ideas as well as bad. Sure it's a bunch of good ideas that's been bankrupting the country. Lot of people feel that way about the money spent on Iraq. I'm not against healthcare but the way this whole thing has gone down is just too centralized in Washington. Here comes the IRS!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

On the other hand, if you divide the house it can't stand in this case.

Also, the reason states don't go bust is that they're part of the country. That's the difference between the US and individual countries in Europe; if, say, Montana were Greece it would be in severe trouble. But the US is not about to go bust; we're not in danger of being unable to pay our debt, contrary to all the Republican hype.

Personally I don't give a damn about states' rights, by the way. What good is it allowing Alabama or somewhere to take away a woman's right to choose. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue that should apply to all states. And so on.

I'm tempted to say that it would be fine with me if Texas seceded and took their creepy right-wing textbooks with them, except that it's not like there are hard borders between red and blue areas. Austin isn't Crawford.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2010)

I'm not concerned about the Republican hype. More the balance sheet. I know so many teachers with pink slips now I can't count them. I hear it's around 25,000. If we can pay why aren't we? These people are out of work now. I wish it were hype - it's not.

I don't think Jefferson and company had it wrong in limiting federal power. It's power is quantum beyond what they envisioned now anyway. States are not permitted to go against the constitution and legislate whatever they want. Texas has their creepy right wing text books (to some) and the Ivy league schools have their creepy left wing texts (to others.) I don't want to burn any of those books and don't want an all powerful central government burning them either. Legitimate grievances can be brought into the courts for things that are anti constitutional. Is an all powerful central government really constitutional anyway?


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

David,

Instead of just criticizing...what would you propose instead? 

No healthcare reform (even though it will save money in the long run)? Ok...what else? Are you in favor or immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan? What else? If your concern is to get the debt under control...does that mean you're in favor of re-instating the tax cuts for the wealthy that Bush put in place? What else? How about demanding immediate refund of all of the economic stimulus from banks and lenders (who cares if they go bust and take half of the population with them)? 

Lastly, are you in favor of legalizing and taxing marijuana?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 25, 2010)

> Are you reasoning that a household with a $20k/year combined income can withstand a $4k tax fee the same way that a $200k/year household can withstand a $40k tax fee?



Yeah, actually it can. It depends on the choice of living. You buy a bigger house, more expensive car, etc. The 40k hit will hurt JUST as much as a 4k hit in a lower class home.

And rarely does anyone decide to stay in a 500 sq ft house when they make 200k a year.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> David,
> 
> Instead of just criticizing...what would you propose instead?
> 
> No healthcare reform (even though it will save money in the long run)? Ok...what else?


I am for reform but wary of a huge addition to the bureaucracy. Reforming insurance co., practices and providing a way for the uninsured (i.e. HC for all) through a very careful process. Not crazy about the current package. 


midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> Are you in favor or immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan?


No. We will get out of Iraq before too long. Afghanistan is a very different situation which has to be carefully weighed. We shouldn't abandon them (again) and we should be realistic about what we can accomplish there.


midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> If your concern is to get the debt under control...does that mean you're in favor of re-instating the tax cuts for the wealthy that Bush put in place? What else? How about demanding immediate refund of all of the economic stimulus from banks and lenders (who cares if they go bust and take half of the population with them)?


Tax relief for anyone is not likely with all the spending. We must get spending under control and help small business in every way possible. Money is coming back from the stimulus it should be refunded to the tax payer and not misappropriated by the government. 


midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> Lastly, are you in favor of legalizing and taxing marijuana?


 I'm all for medical use but haven't made up my mind on total legalization.

Sorry, these answers should be far far more involved - just thumbnails here. In the main I'm not crazy about this HC bill or anything that bloats our pitiful politicians in DC. Government as answer to everything has never appealed to me. Some things yes but not all. State governments should be far more autonomous.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

"Yeah, actually it can. It depends on the choice of living. You buy a bigger house, more expensive car, etc. The 40k hit will hurt JUST as much as a 4k hit in a lower class home."

Wow...I can't believe you just said that. A $4k hit in a low income household could mean that you're homeless. A $40k hit in a $200k household means you're canceling that skiing trip to the Swiss Alps. 

Unbelievable....and to think this is supposed to be a forum populated by artists who generally are more in tune with social inequalities!


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

"Sorry, these answers should be far far more involved - just thumbnails here. In the main I'm not crazy about this HC bill or anything that bloats our pitiful politicians in DC. Government as answer to everything has never appealed to me. Some things yes but not all. State governments should be far more autonomous."

Fair enough....although considering how badly California has been managed (by Republicans) I'm not sure that State autonomy is such a smart idea. 

I say give the Health Care bill a chance to evolve and get tweaked. It might take a few years, but as I stated earlier...by the next presidential election this will not be a factor at all and people won't remember a time without Health Care reform, it will be as ubiquitous as Social Security.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> Fair enough....although considering how badly California has been managed (by Republicans) I'm not sure that State autonomy is such a smart idea.


Not a big fan of the Republicans. I just tend to be more conservative fiscally then I am socially in which I tend to be more liberal.
State autonomy was the idea of some very smart people. Better individual states founder than all brought down by bureaucrats in D.C. California has tried the take care of everyone no matter what approach and we are broke. My friends who are school teachers are losing their jobs and their health care! My point is that Washington has to be incredibly careful about what they are doing. If they do what California has done then they will end up the same way. It's not an ideological position I'm taking it's about physical economics.




midphase @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> I say give the Health Care bill a chance to evolve and get tweaked. It might take a few years, but as I stated earlier...by the next presidential election this will not be a factor at all and people won't remember a time without Health Care reform, it will be as ubiquitous as Social Security.


 Social security is broke.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 25, 2010)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> > I read a MSNBC poll on Tuesday (yes, I read & watch MSNBC) and 67.3% of Americans on MSNBC(!) said they were ‘Angry’ about this bill. A CBS poll today reported 62% of Americans who want the Republicans to continue to fight this bill.


Jack,

Could you post a link that supports those numbers? I checked and the CBS poll I find shows only 46% disapprove of the bill Wednesday:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/24/politics/main6328286.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/ ... toriesArea)

Personally, I disapprove of the bill because it is not doing enough: no public option, no removal of unti-trust law exemption for the health insurance industry etc. So you can count me in those 46%. Where did you get your numbers? - The networks have their polls posted online.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

> I'm not concerned about the Republican hype. More the balance sheet. I know so many teachers with pink slips now I can't count them. I hear it's around 25,000. If we can pay why aren't we? These people are out of work now. I wish it were hype - it's not.



Word up yo.

I'm talking about the federal government not going bankrupt. What sense does it make to spend untold billions on military bases all over the world while the states are in desperate need of aid?

Laying off teachers is absolutely insane.




> I don't think Jefferson and company had it wrong in limiting federal power. It's power is quantum beyond what they envisioned now anyway. States are not permitted to go against the constitution and legislate whatever they want. Texas has their creepy right wing text books (to some) and the Ivy league schools have their creepy left wing texts (to others.) I don't want to burn any of those books and don't want an all powerful central government burning them either. Legitimate grievances can be brought into the courts for things that are anti constitutional. Is an all powerful central government really constitutional anyway?



Hang on. First, Texas is rewriting history to fit a conservative agenda. Unfortunately there's nothing in the Constitution that makes it illegal to be idiots, but that doesn't mean they're not idiots.

Second, we aren't living in the same world Jefferson lived in. The distances were far greater than they are in this day of instant worldwide interaction, first of all, but the reason we need a strong central government is that some big problems - such as healthcare, the ecological survival of the planet, and avoiding another Great Depression - require it.

Again, all ideology is crap if you use it as anything more than a guide. The real world has very real problems that require BIG GOVERNMENT solutions. And there's nothing wrong with that; Obama isn't going to take away your guns and force you to become a Communist Moslem (he and everyone else born in Indonesia and Kenya is Moslem, of course).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

Oh, and getting back to the original topic of this thread: I agree that racism is a part of the teabag crap. The idea of a black man representing the government is just one more thing to lash out at.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 25, 2010)

Wow I didn't realize the Republicans in California had that much power...
That's impressive how they have run the 9th largest economy in the world into Bancrupcy with such a small number...

Senators in DC
2 Democrats 
0 Republicans

Congressional Seats
34 Democrats
19 Republican

State Assembly
50 Democrats
30 Republicans

I can't even begin to list the numbers of Businesses that have relocated in Nevada to escape the endless tax hikes.
Pretty soon if you want to surf the point in Malibu you'll have to come to Nevada to buy the surfboard.
I will definately vote out the local Republicans in Eldorado County, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Maybe my taxes will go down under a 100% Democratic majority instead of the current 72% majority.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 25, 2010)

Hi Hans,

The MSNBC link to it is down now (not too surprised). However first time I checked it was Tuesday morning I believe. I checked it again later on that day and then it was suddenly gone later on the next morning. It was on the main MSNBC site.

The CBS poll I heard about from someone else second hand and don't have a link for it. (This is perhaps not the best answer you were looking for here.) The CBS poll was not 'approval or not approval'. The question was 'should the Republicans continue to fight this bill'. 

Hope this helps.

But don't worry, no matter whatever bad things & unintended consequences come out of this pig of a bill the Democrats will be blamed.

Best wishes,
Jack


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 25, 2010)

maybe im wrong but wasnt bush that spent most of the money. i mean those 2 wars for 8 years did not come cheap. most of the money came from bonds and other fed tricks to bypass the congress, who also approved money for those wars backed by republicans and also both of them approved money for the 1st bail out masterminded by the feds chairman they appointed. so now, all of the sudden is obama and the democrats that are going to bankrupt the country. thats some short attention spam. 
everytime congress approved billions for the wars and the pentagon i always was thinking to myself, gosh thats a lot of money and every three to 6 months somehting like that was on the news when bush was president, who got hold of the government with no debt at all from clinton. 

thats one of the other reasons tea party are just racist trying to pin everything on the black prez. 
i think obama is doing a good job for being left with a 860 billion debt and 2 failed wars. that one of them was just a vendetta case from his father and darth cheney.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2010)

Well...according to Gallup, President Obama's approval rating just jumped from 46% to 51% from last week.

Coincidence?


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 25, 2010)

Yes, getting back to the title of this thread ò«—   Ë,Ó«—   Ë,Ô«—   Ë,Õ«—   Ë,Ö«—   Ë,×«—   Ë,Ø«—   Ë,Ù«—   Ë,Ú«—   Ë,Û«—   Ë,Ü«—   Ë,Ý«—   Ë,Þ«—   Ë,ß«—   Ë-®«—   Ë-¯«˜   Ë,à«˜   Ë,á«˜   Ë,â«˜   Ë,ã«˜   Ë,ä«˜   Ë,å«˜   Ë,æ«˜   Ë,ç«˜   Ë,è«˜   Ë,é«˜   Ë,ê«˜   Ë,ë«˜   Ë,ì«˜   Ë,í«˜   Ë,î«˜   Ë,ï«˜   Ë,ð«˜   Ë,ñ«˜   Ë,ò«˜   Ë,ó«˜   Ë,ô«˜   Ë,õ«˜   Ë,ö«˜   Ë,÷«˜   Ë,ø«˜   Ë,ù«˜   Ë,ú«˜   Ë,û«˜   Ë,ü«˜   Ë,ý«˜   Ë,þ«˜   Ë,ÿ«˜   Ë- «˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-	«˜   Ë-
«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë- «˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë-«˜   Ë- «˜   Ë-!«˜   Ë-"«˜   Ë-#«˜   Ë-$«˜   Ë-%«˜   Ë-&«˜   Ë-'«˜   Ë-(«˜   Ë-)«˜   Ë-*«˜   Ë-+«˜   Ë-,«˜   Ë--«˜   Ë-.«˜   Ë-/«˜   Ë-0«˜   Ë-1«˜   Ë-2«˜   Ë-3«˜   Ë-4«˜   Ë-5«˜   Ë-6«˜   Ë-7«˜   Ë-8«˜   Ë-9«˜   Ë-:«˜   Ë-;«˜   Ë-<«˜   Ë-=«˜   Ë->«˜   Ë-?«˜   Ë[email protected]              ò«˜   Ë-B«˜   Ë-C«˜   Ë-D«˜   Ë-E«˜   Ë-F«˜   Ë-G«˜   Ë-H«˜   Ë-I«˜   Ë-J«˜   Ë-K«˜   Ë-L«˜   Ë-M«˜   Ë-N«˜   Ë-O«˜   Ë-P«˜   Ë-Q«˜   Ë-R«˜   Ë-S«˜   Ë-T«˜   Ë-U«˜   Ë-V«˜   Ë-W«˜   Ë-X«˜   Ë-Y«˜   Ë-Z«˜   Ë-[«˜   Ë-\«˜   Ë-]«˜   Ë-^«˜   Ë-_«˜   Ë-`«˜   Ë-a«˜   Ë-b«˜   Ë-c«˜   Ë-d«˜   Ë-e«˜   Ë-f«˜   Ë-g«˜   Ë-h«˜   Ë-i«˜   Ë-j«˜   Ë-k«˜   Ë-l«˜   Ë-m«˜   Ë-n«˜   Ë-o«˜   Ë-p«˜   Ë-q«˜   Ë-r«˜   Ë-s«˜   Ë-t«˜   Ë-u«


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 25, 2010)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> Yes, getting back to the title of this thread - the Red Herring - the press attempting to separate the majority of the people of America from the Tea Party because they are supposedly racists.
> 
> More on Sundays demonstration in DC: The Congressional Black Caucus members deciding to take a casual stroll through 30,000 Tea Party while carrying multiple, multiple cell phones & video cameras in an effort to incite some kind, any kind of racial response. Now why would they want to do that?
> 
> ...



ok, so lets they are not racists. why then every little thing he does is taken as its the worst thing. 
lets take a big things like the bail out, done by bush then by obama. republicans decry the dems are spending too much. 

now simple things like the census. all of the sudden no tea party or far right guy is saying the worst about the census. 
any policy, even if its something that its not from his agenda but from previous laws etc

dont you think there is more about it than just obama's policies. maybe not racism then what? 
don;t you think there is a big effort to make it seem that obama is evil and that everything he does is wrong and discredit him?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2010)

> Our government can do big things and address big issues but it is swelling and spending at an alarming rate.



Swelling and spending are two separate issues, but the spending is entirely appropriate right now. It's what has kept us out of another Great Depression.

Deficit spending when nobody but the government is spending and deficit spending under normal circumstances are not at all the same thing. John Maynard Keynes.


----------



## P.T. (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm a former democrat who hasn't voted for either party in years.
I think they are both destroying the country and have been for decades.

I told a friend of mine who is a strong dem supporter that Obama wouldn't change much.
We would stay in Iraq and he would continue the corporate bailouts (privatizing profits and turning losses over to the taxpayers). (They should have let those companies go under and let the remaining companies and new companies take over, just like they let banks fail and move the assets to other stronger banks. It would have cost almost nothing and we would have ended up with stronger companies)

I also told him that even after all of the years of complaints about the patriot act ( a terrible piece of legislation) the dems would not overturn it when they took over.

Even much of the current economic problems that many people blame corporation for ( and rightly so) can be laid at the feet of the gov't for their refusal to properly regulate these financial institutions. Part of this problem was the repeal of some financial regulations in the 90's. Part of it was exactly the same as the idiocy that caused the saving and loan mess in the 80's. Let a finacial company make any kind of risky investments that they want using depositors money and then let them keep any profits but let the taxpayer cover any losses.
Of course it was a mess.

Not knowing the full contents of the healthcare bill it is impossible to know for certain, but I would not be surprised if it was just another transfer of wealth to the corporate interests.
I hear the latest plan is to take over 401K plans and basically nationalize them as a national retirement system to support soc sec.

I find it hard to believe that people trust politicians anymore.


----------



## George Caplan (Mar 26, 2010)

jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> I never said that the government is not to regulate business. The government should not BE in the business of making cars or building hospitals or being an insurance company.



aint that the truth. when we saw what was going on from this side we were in disbelief. especially when they let Lehmans go down. how can you let an institution like Lehmans go down when today they would have been hugely profitable? spite. look at AIG and what they did there and still they let Lehmans go down. ridiculous.

Barclays said thank you very much to the US government and no surprise to that. the second government steps into areas it doesn't understand is trouble. on top of that the uk gov decided that it was time to fool most of the brits who wanted to be fooled by blaming banking solely for the trouble IT caused. brown and blair TOLD banking here to lend lend lend because thats the way they can jig their growth figures. they were showing growth thru accumulative debt of several years. when the shit hit the fan they prompty turned around and blamed the banks because thats what their supporters wanted to hear. banks were partly responsible in this country for sure, but only a few of them. Barclays and HSBC had no real problems at all and thanks to brown and his gov for instance, Barclays share pice went up over 6 times in a matter of months. go figure. you cant buck the markets and the brits and we americans will find this out over and over again.

look at what the uk gov have done over here. that should be a lesson to the planet and it isnt over yet. the debt level here is unreal and im not sure british people fully understand the implications of that just based on watching tv. greece is blown and spain portugal ireland and probably italy are looking shaky. and if the uk vote in another lab gov for 5 years the market reaction will be sharp and painful for people of the uk. not that i am partisan and cannot even vote here due to residency constraints. take a look at the gilt/bond prices if they get back in. same situation with the US and china if china decided there was a problem. :lol:


----------



## P.T. (Mar 26, 2010)

Most people over here don't seem to know that much of Europe is even worse than the US. They have larger debt compared to GDP.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 26, 2010)

George Caplan @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said that the government is not to regulate business. The government should not BE in the business of making cars or building hospitals or being an insurance company.
> ...



I agree with a lot of what you're saying. There is too much corruption in much of these institutions. I cannot believe that some companies chose to give big bonuses with their bailout monies. It's like giving a kid a toy, they break it, then you give them a nicer toy that they just break again. If it were up to me, there would be severe penalties if a company that was teetering on financial ruination was revealed to have given their CEOs big annual bonuses. IN Japan, if a company is doing poorly, the president and top level redistribute their salaries to prevent firing of staff. Also, in more dramatic cases, the president commits sepiku. 

The western mentality of capitalism follows the model of "get as much as I can, horde it, and screw my fellow man". Sorry if some disagree but this is what I see to be happening. And I don't ascribe this to either political party. I see it as a general flaw in a system exploited by base human behavior. Not saying communism is great either- in fact, unless we are like a colony of ants (or The Borg), that idealogy cannot work either. We must strive to moderate capitalism with a humanistic system. Frankly, I just don't see this happening. too many variables in humans to work. Sigh.


----------



## jsaras (Mar 26, 2010)

[quote="midphase @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:07 pm[/quote]

Mr midphase,

You are incapable of having an intelligent and courteous exchange with anyone who differs from your socialist ideals. You resort to ad-hominem insults, "...you're stupid, crazy, you've got your head up your ass...". These statements reveal the level of your intellect, not mine.

Good day,
J


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 26, 2010)

Be afraid, BE VERY AFRAID! Social justice is around the corner. Run, run, hide your children!!!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 26, 2010)

Obama is not US-born. He's.... AN ALIEN!!!!


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 26, 2010)

P.T. @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> Most people over here don't seem to know that much of Europe is even worse than the US. They have larger debt compared to GDP.



Hmm ....

I officially declare that I am anti-proud about the debt that our governements took and take up. The whole situation is really a shame.

However your sentence above seems to be proof that you take whatever you want and claim whatever you want, just to back your position. Hey, this is not a contest in winning an argument with whatever it takes ...

If you look at the table below you can see that the debt/GDP rate is compareable between Europe and the US, not larger. In case the picture is too small:

78.0 % USA
72.6 % European Union

(and again, this is bad enough)








Source:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsverschuldung[/img]


----------



## JohnG (Mar 26, 2010)

P.T. @ 26th March 2010 said:


> Most people over here don't seem to know that much of Europe is even worse than the US. They have larger debt compared to GDP.



In support of this observation, there is zero market data to support the argument that the US is "going bankrupt." Yields on US debt, though they've crept up, are still ludicrously low by any historical standard.

By contrast, Portugal and Greece are of course struggling.

However, in Europe, the situation varies quite a bit according to country. Despite recent weakness in the Euro, there are many relatively strong countries in the EU, even carrying a lot of debt. 

One of the questions is always how big total debt is, national debt, private debt, debt owed outside the country, which currency and so on.

Check out slides 6 and 7 of this if you want some more data:

http://www.craigsip.com/userfiles/file/ ... uation.pdf

Debt as a percent of GDP is definitely interesting, and there is no question that there's a boatload of it right now. But better that than bread lines.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 26, 2010)

The fact is the USA will be saved from this Bill.
This is why...........
Medicare and Social Security are big entitlement programs that starting to become insolvent.
Politicians can use any cloak of appeasement they want, but in this case we are being promised something in return after we let these big spenders have 4 years of a giant revenue stream w/ zero payouts until 2014.
Fine..............I want this to happen, just tell us adults the truth and quit lying to us as if we needed another year of Santa Claus stories.
I listen to no media and just find certain topics of interest and local news since I live in Vegas, not DC.
But anyone with any common sense can see that this 4 year period allows the insurnace companies to propsper, and the same show continues with the exception of the Middle Class once again carrying the load in the guise of a ROI schedule for us in 2014.
Just be glad you will see something for your money for once.
I have worked for decades and have been screwed by ALL Politicians, so I am use to their lies and treacherous methods.
I am finally getting something back.
Anyone who really thinks this is a humane decision is sadly misguided.
These people do not care what your problem is unless they can use it to advance their political agenda.
This is all about saving a failing Government program that is sure to destroy both parties. So you can either fall for the left vrs. right dog & pony show or follow the money.
Both parties lose if SS or MedCare go under.
Where else could they steal the money from if those programs are gone...?


----------



## JohnG (Mar 26, 2010)

hi chimuelo

you are right that medicare and SS are by far the biggest problems in terms of size. $13 trillion apiece. Dwarfs any worries about the deficit, cumulative or current.

SS is actually not as bad off, really, as the figures make it appear, since it would not take a huge alteration to make it solvent. Modest CPI changes, means testing that would only affect rather well-off people, and other changes that could be implemented with a lot of grumbling but not too much pain.

The scarier one is Medicare, because the costs are high and unpredictable.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 26, 2010)

Funny how we can do our own research and draw our conclusions instead of copy/paste quotes and scare tactics.
I am a very impatient person and hate the corporate media structure we live under, so I use a DVR and fast forward through speeches, etc.

Obama always gives hints in his pep rally type of speeches that you don't hear when he's doing the side to side teleprompter reading. It does make it appear as though he is speaking to a large audience with that left to right glancing but some of us don't fall for that. Thats D. Axelrod speaking there, and I already heard the campagin slogans the year before.

But Obama is a great speaker and if you listen closely he drops hints everywhere of the real purpose of this crusade.
This is exactly why Schumer and Biden need strict scripts or a muzzle.

My father is spending 6000 USD every month for his prescriptions and won't even discuss the cost of his experimental treatments he is recieving. He beat Bone Cancer and is recovering rapidly. He still has lead in his leg from the Pacific so he is a fighter and isn't going down easy.
But 4500 USD is what Medicare pays and that is his doughnut hole so they call it.
He earned it. He served his country and paid his taxes, but what LBJ, and FDR seemed to forget was that modern medicine would allow a much longer life span.
Right now there are 40-60 Million elderly in the USA, I have no exact data but big Pharmacuetical is getting rich and Uncle Sam is going broke.
Lets say 30 Million are using their doughnut hole..................
30M x 4500 + 13,500,000,000.
Pretty close to your figures.

This is unsustainable so common sense tells me this bill was passed to save these out of control government programs.
Sure we can say look how much they spent there,....they are stupid.
No they're not. 
They post ridiculous programs and stupid expenitures to cover up the real issues.
In hopes they will total out correctly.
Once you get over the fact that you are lied to everytime they speak, you can focus on the money since that is the driving force in DC. When they say the war cost 20 Billion last month.............well I know what they really mean.
And do you honestly think that they spent 13 Million in experiments on Bees doing Cocaine.... >8o 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... mg6eoO5v7g

Whats even worse is the fact that they can kill and dope up all of these Bee's in the name of Science....
But it's called Animal Cruelty if I give my Dog an 8 Ball....It's absurd.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 26, 2010)

> Debt as a percent of GDP is definitely interesting, and there is no question that there's a boatload of it right now. But better that than bread lines.



Exactly (or food stamp lines, the modern day equivalent).

Paul Krugman thinks it's low growth that fuels deficits, not the other way around. He says he needs to do more research on that, but if he writes that in his blog on NYTimes.com, you know he's not just whistling dixie.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 26, 2010)

jsaras @ Thu Mar 25 said:


> Dynamitec @ Thu Mar 25 said:
> 
> 
> > If the the raising temperature (caused by humans or not) causes the poles to melt and the salt concentration in the oceans declines there won't be a gulf stream anymore which might lead to another ice age.
> ...



Re number two- why is it when you scratch many conservatives, you find either a racist or a homophobe or both? Sad.


----------



## P.T. (Mar 26, 2010)

Hannes,

I saw a different chart. And even in the one you posted one some of those countries are worse, though most are better than the US.


----------



## P.T. (Mar 26, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> > Debt as a percent of GDP is definitely interesting, and there is no question that there's a boatload of it right now. But better that than bread lines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know.

Isn't this like telling someone who willfully spends way more than he earns that his problem is that he doesn't earn enough rather than that he should cut spending?

I don't know where they think all of this endless growth is supposed to come from. Eventually things hit a steady state point. Sometimes growth is cancerous.
I think that Keynesian is very likely a flawed system.
Constant growth requires constant population growth which if why they constantly flood the country with immigrants. They need population growth for economic growth.
So when does it end, when america has 500 million people? A billion. More growth, more growth, maybe 2 billion people? 
But at the same time they tell us that the world is overpopulated ands we need to stop having children. This seems insane.

The gov't really needs to look at what they can afford to do rather than just doing whatever they want without thinking about cost.

Maybe if we stopped allowing companies to outsource our jobs for the purpose of increasing profits at the expense of american jobs then people would have more money to live on.

Every outsourced job is a loss of tax revenue to the gov't as well as a lost american job. The person doing that job in China is paying tax to China.

The gov't allows this to happen.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 26, 2010)

So do you want government control of the economy?


----------



## P.T. (Mar 26, 2010)

JohnG @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> So do you want government control of the economy?



If you are responding to me I think you might say a bit more so I can see what you mean.

I think that a company that is located here should hire people here.\I think the gov't should at least tax a company for every job they outsource.
I think we should have import duties on foreign good the same as most other countries already have.

From what I have read and heard even on music forums from people buying from foreign countries many Europen countries, Canada and China all have import duties.

America is about the only country that doesn't.

If you let the gov't pander to the business community for the sake of their higher profits
you will continue to see the quality of life here to erode.

It's also foolish to bring millions of immigrants into the country every year while there are fewer jobs every year.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 26, 2010)

P.T. @ 26/3/2010 said:


> It's also foolish to bring millions of immigrants into the country every year while there are fewer jobs every year.



Right. And you're going to keep the US at 300+ million people by having how many babies per family? Lowest birthrate ever:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... by-boomers


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 26, 2010)

P.T. - Sorry to be patronizing, but you really need to read up on economics before posting. What you're saying is totally nonsensical; you don't know what growth means, anything about Keynes, the difference between government spending when nobody else is spending and in normal times...

...but of course that makes you better informed than the entire Republican party and a lot of the Democrats.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 26, 2010)

However I agree that we need tax incentives/penalties to encourage keeping jobs here. More than that, though, we need massive investment in renewable energy, since that seems like the most likely source for new jobs that have to be done here.


----------



## snowleopard (Mar 26, 2010)

Actually, Keynes did say something that a lot of people ignore. That eventually the markets do correct themselves. However, it may take decades to do so. 

Otherwise, I agree with PT in that by and large the government is so bought and sold by the highest bidder (both parties, all directions) thus no change. 

Until we completely overhaul campaign financing and make lobbying the crime it is, there will be little if any change regardless of what political party or idiom one ascribes to or espouses. Liberal, conservative, green, tea party, it doesn't matter.


----------



## snowleopard (Mar 26, 2010)

As to the Tea Party being racist, it depends on how you're defining the Tea Party. Meanwhile, take a look at this Harris poll of Republicans: 

57% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim 

45% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the U.S.

38% of Republicans believe Obama is doing many of the things that Hitler did 

24% of Republicans believe Obama may be the Anti-Christ

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/199166.asp?from=blog_last3


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 26, 2010)

And I agree with what you're saying, Snowleopard. What I'm talking about in P.T.'s post is the part about telling someone he should earn more than he's spending or whatever the heck he actually said. No.

Krugman's point is extremely important. Conservative deficit hawks think the national budget is the same as your and my household budget, and the way to get out of economic trouble is to go on an austerity program in the middle of a crisis.

That's 180˚ wrong; this is the time for the government to run deficits in order to reduce the unemployment, and then during normal times they can cut back.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 26, 2010)

snowleopard @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> As to the Tea Party being racist, it depends on how you're defining the Tea Party. Meanwhile, take a look at this Harris poll of Republicans:
> 
> 57% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim
> 
> ...


----------



## José Herring (Mar 26, 2010)

P.T. @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> It's also foolish to bring millions of immigrants into the country every year while there are fewer jobs every year.



I guess there's still a little bit of old Austria left in you.

This is a nation of immigrants. It was built on immigration. This country should provide every legal opportunity for people to come here and work. Jobs are created by people. People market their skills and they create a job or they open a business.

If we lose sight of that in this country then we really are doomed.

Jose


----------



## rgames (Mar 26, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> Krugman's point is extremely important. Conservative deficit hawks think the national budget is the same as your and my household budget, and the way to get out of economic trouble is to go on an austerity program in the middle of a crisis.



"Krugman thinks" "Keynes says" ...

Come on Nick, quit with the name dropping. These guys lay claim to expertise that nobody can prove or disprove, so what value is it?

The apple doesn't fall to the Earth because Newton said it would. The reality exists apart from Newton. When you explain a phenomenon on the basis of statements by supposed experts, that's basically religion. That's why the country is so divided on this issue: nobody can win the argument because nobody has any factual basis. So the camps form and proselytize.

Better to show the falling apple than to say it's fact because "Krugman says so".

I raise this point because people are too quick to look to these supposed "experts" for guidance. Stop and think: health care is REALLY expensive. And the government is REALLY broke. Does it REALLY make sense to add that burden to the government without addressing the cost issue?

The same economists who say the health care bill will reduce the deficit predicted years of surpluses during the Clinton administration. How did that turn out?

Economists are like weather forecasters: experts at post-diction. Prediction is not their strong suit.

So look for the falling apple and decide for yourself.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 26, 2010)

One piece of faulty logic after another. You're the one who's trying to fit reality to your offensive reality. And yes, given that tens of thousands of people die each year because they don't have health coverage, it's fair to call it offensive.

Richard. Weather forecasters can't predict the weather exactly, but that doesn't mean overall trends aren't perfectly well understood. Same with economics: it's not possible to predict the gyrations of the stock market, but there are plenty of models for overall economic trends.

Meanwhile the CBO estimates aren't possible to predict exactly, but they're conservative. This bill almost certainly will save money over time.

But even it didn't we can and must afford it. Public health is the most important thing there is in a civilized society.

And the "name dropping" is because I was repeating something Krugman said and something Keynes proved (or we might still be in the Great Depression). And it's not just those guys - there are plenty of other economists who agree, for good reason: it's backed up by sound logic.

The country is NOT really broke. States are, but the country isn't.

And I don't understand what you're saying about years of budget surpluses under Clinton. In fact we did have them, due to the dot com boom.


----------



## rgames (Mar 26, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> there are plenty of other economists who agree



That's more of the same - you still haven't shown anyone the falling apple. All you've done is continued down the "beacuse they say so" line of thinking. As I said above, that's fine for religion but not a good way to go about deciding the future of an entire nation.

Look, I've said many times I'm in favor of universal health care. Of course it's important. And I'm willing to help pay for those who need it.

I oppose this bill because it doesn't adequately address the cost issue - it was pushed through to give the perception of a victory for the democrats. Obama and the democrats couldn't care less what's in the bill - they just want something that sounds kind of like health care so the house claim the victory and Obama can say "See - I'm delivering on campaign promises!" This bill is 100% politics.

Until we address the cost issue, all we're doing is obligating ourselves to entitlements we can't afford. Simply passing the law doesn't make it economically viable.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 26, 2010)

'We'll fix it in the mix".


----------



## rgames (Mar 26, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> 'We'll fix it in the mix".



LOL! Too funny...


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 26, 2010)

Funny, but I believe that really is the policy. Look. As a nation, we sometimes go to war ( or 'armed conflict', to use the euphemism) with less deliberation that it took to pass this complete unknown warthog of a bill. If we can make speedy determinations on whether or not to kill and be killed, surely we can take a shot at giving people in this country what every other civilized nation in the world offers its citizens- the right to affordable healthcare for all. Establish the precedent as a given-then go fix it in the mix. I think that's the prevailing notion amongst the Dems at this point.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 26, 2010)

rgames, no. No.

I'm on my way out, but no.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 26, 2010)

I've always understood that deficit spending is a very well accepted economic policy that has worked very well and practiced by both parties forever. What you hear now though is {politics aside} people are concerned about the _size_ of the deficit. If many American people are wary of a new program that could add far more debt, you can hardly blame them. Obama has explained the benefits of his HC bill over and over but people don't trust it. I don't think it's because they don't trust him as much as they don't trust the government in general with it's many failings.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 26, 2010)

OK, this is not real. 

The democrats pass a very controversial bill and they were gonna have to face some hard times so they(or anybody else) pull this little stunt and now we're talking about racist republicans instead. :roll: Oh yea, that's what it's about... I don't know why it took me so long to figure it out. :lol: I felt it wasn't real from the start because it had an obvious wag the dog smell to it... shame on those who are pushing this. I'm talking to those of you online.

About A.Huffington, i don't trust her. She censured Jessi Ventura's book or article about conspiracy theory. Because we all know how dangerous these conspiracy theory are. :roll: 

Of course i cant be a 100% sure but if you keep your eye on the ball and that means if you look at who benefits you see the democrats essentially took the ball and they're running with it. It's very convenient. 

But I'm also aware there's a bit of a rise of antisemitism online, and I'm obviously against that, and so it could be real. But i don't buy it for reasons I've stated earlier.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 26, 2010)

> OK, this is not real.
> 
> The democrats pass a very controversial bill and they were gonna have to face some hard times so they(or anybody else) pull this little stunt and now we're talking about racist republicans instead. Rolling Eyes Oh yea, that's what it's about... I don't know why it took me so long to figure it out. Laughing I felt it wasn't real from the start because it had an obvious wag the dog smell to it... shame on those who are pushing this. I'm talking to those of you online.



Right on, brother!

.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 26, 2010)

Then there's the homophobia.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 26, 2010)

....And xenophobia


----------



## midphase (Mar 26, 2010)

"The democrats pass a very controversial bill and they were gonna have to face some hard times so they(or anybody else) pull this little stunt and now we're talking about racist republicans instead."


Right on brother...have no idea where we could have possibly gotten that crazy idea about Republicans being racists....hmmmm....

http://sirenschronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama-racist-latest.jpg (http://sirenschronicles.com/wp-content/ ... latest.jpg)


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 27, 2010)

I disagree.

At this point, R.L. has enough money, if such a thing is possible for some people.
I think being regarded as the patron saint of radical conservatism, looking down benignly on his converted flock as they overtake power in America....would be his supreme legacy. He'd be worshiped in conservative circles. He'd preen as he was admired by the crowds. He'd be lionized and legitimized in print. It would be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. His name would be murmured in hushed and respectful tones.

I think at this point, Rush desires the next level of God-like status. He'll soon tire of the buffoonery of his present bully pulpit and wish to ascend.


----------



## jsaras (Mar 27, 2010)

Udo @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> About conservatism:
> 
> In a 2003 study, funded, ironically, by the Bush Administration through the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes for Health, the authors concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". The authors noted that " the intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions and impose simplistic cliches and sterotypes."
> 
> ".....Specifically, we argue that a number of different epistemic motives (dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity; cognitive complexity; closed-mindedness; uncertainty avoidance; needs for order, structure, and closure), existential motives (self-esteem, terror management, fear, threat, anger, and pessimism), and ideological motives (self-interest, group dominance, and system justification) are all related to the expression of political conservatism".



OK, how long before you decide to send them to "re-education" camps?


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 27, 2010)

RL was a riot when he first hit the scene. I loved those replays of Politicians speaking where he had his Jolly face in the lower corner making faces.........hilarious stuff.
But once Americans decided the whole silly Ken Starr trials were detrimental and the dems got the boot nation wide his show had nowhere to go. Back to Radio where he started. I never knew this but I was playing on the field in a Big 11 peice Horn Band at all Cardinal Home games and RL was the Kansas City announcer because of his vocal skills. He tended to get ideas from Harry Carey, Sr.
Media is a tool of corporations and Government and it's sad to see Chris Matthews or Glen Beck getting such huge ratings for nothing more than Biased, divisive commentary.
Look at Beck and you can see Rush Limbaugh incarnate, and a very poor immatation too. When he does his little picture in the lower left like RL did it isn't even funny. RL made those silly faces and the fact it would happen during a pathetic script reading from Al Gore made it even funnier.
The reason why people listen to these guys is they have lost trust in their leaders.
They are on the payroll of corporations and lawyers, not to mention China who wants another American Port, all while they steal the Social Security Pension funds, etc.
They all do this, and it sickens people to think their leaders are spineless part timers, who don't want to tackle the tough issues like Medicare or SS.
Well now we have a brave one who might not get re elected. But I am an optimist and if things go the way I think they are, I will be thanking Obama for years to come.
Even if this bill is a pig, which it is, and it fails. I will still remember him for having a pair and taking a shot at it.
Here in Nevada there's a saying...........You can win if you don't go.

Have faith and turn off your Televisons for a few weeks.
You might be surpised to see the advantage of not hearing death and mayhem and 2 out of 300,000,000 million people saying that terrible terrible n----word that sells so many records........ :mrgreen:


----------



## midphase (Mar 27, 2010)

" it's sad to see Chris Matthews or Glen Beck getting such huge ratings for nothing more than Biased, divisive commentary. "

Are you really putting Chris Matthews on the same "nuttiness" level as Glen Beck? I think a more level comparison might be Chris Matthews and Steve Doocy.

I'm really not sure there is a Liberal (or anything else for that matter) equivalent of Glen Beck...he's in his own universe of crazy.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2010)

spectrum @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 25 said:
> 
> 
> > He seems to be the one Republican who gets the real lesson to be learned (from the point of view of a thinking conservative rather than a teabag moron):
> ...



Yeah that's a good one. I also like this one. It kind of proves that the Republicans are being hypocritical and spreading false info in order to energize their nutty misinformed base:
_
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994._


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2010)

Okay, rgames.

We're talking about two things: deficit spending and healthcare reform.

To start with, in this country we could afford $100 billion a year to cover our people even if it weren't paid for. It's just the right thing to do in an economy as large as ours.

But if the CBO estimates - conservatively - that this will reduce the deficit over time, what is there other than the fact that you say it to refute that? The numbers aren't pulled out of Nancy Pelosi's ass! Obviously there are lots of things that can't be predicted precisely - such as the exact trajectory we're on - but there are cost-cutting measures that may save even more money than they predict.

But the point I was making that you dismissed because I name-dropped experts (who the frick else are you supposed to read for information?!) is that deficit hawks have it wrong. The argument is that trying to reduce the deficit *now* would kill the recovery; it's much easier to reduce the deficit during normal times. And the reason is simple: people aren't spending as much because they've lost or are afraid of losing their jobs, businesses aren't spending because they don't have customers, so that leaves the public sector - the government.

And I'm sorry, but if I'm going to read articles by the likes of Niall Ferguson saying that the government should be on an austerity program in the middle of the Great Recession, I'm also going to read Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Robert Reich, and Martin Wolf explaining that he's full of shit.

Name dropping. Who are we supposed to listen to: Jack Weaver? Sarah Palin? rgames?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2010)

Dave C: as I keep saying, the amount of the deficit is only important as a percentage of GNP. The government is borrowing at under 1.5% interest; the service on our debt is estimated to rise to 7% of GNP, and we can afford that.

There are recent economic models that say it's unsustainable at 90% of GNP, but then why was England able to survive with a 250% rate - and climb out of it?

Remember, the alternative to deficit spending is much worse unemployment and a far weaker economy! And unemployment is a much longer term disaster than it appears to be.

I'm not in favor of wasting money, of course, but we really need more stimulus right now to lower the unemployment. Just passing tax incentives isn't going to have a serious effect.

And the states absolutely should be getting aid. It's criminal laying off teachers and cutting education at a time when we need to compete with the likes of India and China, who are turning out college graduates at a much higher rate than we are.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2010)

Fernando, why don't you just post that you're in favor of pedophilia? You'd get a much bigger rise and more attention than you get just posting things that are only 99% ludicrous.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 27, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 27 said:


> Remember, the alternative to deficit spending is much worse unemployment and a far weaker economy!



Nick, I agree with nearly everybody you write (well, nearly :mrgreen: ). And I value you very much.

But I strongly oppose that the alternative of taking up debt is unemployment and weak economy.

Not taking up debt is a question of principles and character. If you can do with what ressources you have, you don't need to take a loan on your future. If think you need to spend more than your current income is, then you take up a loan and hope that things will get better and you can pay it back then. Meanwhile you pay interest and chances are that when time comes you will need a new loan that is even bigger. Because you can not break the habit of spending more than you have. This is the same for states as for enterprises as for persons.

I think it is a tragedy that today these basics are blurred. Many people, especially those that are versed in economics, think today this would be a naive point of view. Arguments are constructed why it would be cheaper to have dept than not to have (tax reduction, cash flow, leverage etc.). But track down each real case with full-cost accounting and you will see who really earns ... the banks. Their interest is their interest.

To operate with what is available is a hard art but pays off. It means setting priorities and sticking to virtues. These are the same qualities that make a person, a business or an economy successful.

If you ask yourself why some countries have such a high debt then ask Nicolas about Greece. Their health care system is not the reason for it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2010)

Again, there's a HUGE difference between running up debt during good times - a bad thing (when it gets too far) and deficit spending DURING THE WORST RECESSION IN MODERN HISTORY!

It's counterintuitive, but I'm afraid your concept of fundamental economics is wrong when you're talking about the US federal budget. A household budget, yes, but not the US. If we tried to reduce or even balance the deficit right now we would be in another Great Depression. We have to borrow money - it's an investment.

Greece is in a very different situation, because they're tied to the Euro. Normally they'd devalue their currency and that would attract trade, but they can't do that. We in the US have the Fed. Not the same thing at all.

Also, I have to repeat what I said about high debt vs. GNP. Amounts of money mean nothing without a scale; if you have a high GNP, then the debt service is a lower percentage of your money.

So deficit spending - and I say we need another stimulus - is the only way out of this mess. A stimulus would pick up the economy, then tax revenues would go up and the deficit would go down.

Right now the Fed would have to offer negative interest rates to get the unemployment rate down, and obviously they can't do that.

That's exactly why I'm in favor of another stimulus - although this time one more focused on investment, especially in renewable energy. But Keynes showed that *any* government spending in the current situation is putting money into the economy, not taking it out.

Keynes actually used the example of burying money down an abandoned mine, filling it in, and then taking bids from companies to dig it out. That would actually boost the economy!

But of course it's better to invest in things that sustain themselves.


----------



## P.T. (Mar 27, 2010)

josejherring @ Fri Mar 26 said:


> ....And xenophobia



If you are referring to my earlier post where I suggested a reduction in immigration during a severe economic downturn, then you have a very odd idea of what xenophobia is.
I think you just enjoy name calling and seem to think it is a substitute for argument.

I also notice no one had anything to say about the rest of the post concerning things that the democrats haven't done about things like fair taxation, the flat tax proposal from a few years ago (Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:16 pm) or the patriot act.

I am not surprised that you went for the lame xenophobia attack instead.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2010)

No I wasn't referring to you. Just making a swiping comment about conservatives I've met.

I don't know you. I wouldn't pretend to even know what it would be like if Nazi's came in and took over my country. I'm sure that would kind of taint my view of the world and of government.

There are plenty of things to criticize democrats about. I'm actually in my heart more of an independent. But, removing the abusive practices of this healthcare industry I really do feel is a good thing.

I'm not a liberal. They don't have a name for what I am politically other than maybe "pragmatic". But, on the other hand I think conservative thinking is so narrow minded and I notice that it mostly comes from whites that are pretty scared of everything and everyone and are completely afraid of any kind of change. So they are terrified of Obama. I also notice that conservatives are so dogmatic in their beliefs and that they never question their beliefs feeling that their beliefs are some how absolute. I think people that think in absolutes can't reason. And when they do reason they sound like morons, because they are reasoning from a belief system and not facts.

Where I grew up taints my views too. I grew up in Arizona. At the time it was very conservative. Probably still is. I really grew to hate the narrow minded environment I grew up in. I got out when I was 19. Moved to NY. NY was really way more liberal. I found the quality of life, vitality and people much more engaging educated and interesting. People involved in the arts, business, not just a society of 9 to 5 corporate people. It was an eye opener.

Having lived in NY, LA and visiting places like Boston ect... I always compared it to the conservative state I grew up in. I came to certain conclusions. And, I noticed that they hold true. The most conservative places have a very poor quality of life intellectually. The more liberal places have a society that I have come to enjoy being in.

Rightly or wrongly every time I hear people spewing conservative I can't help to think that it's just racist. Arizona was probably the most racist place I've ever lived. I don't want my country to return to conservative values. I hate conservative values. Though I'm a big believer in a government that lives within it's means. But as far as recent memory serves democrats have been the only ones to achieve that. Both Bushes and Reagan ran up deficits like crazy. Which leads me to my last conclusion. Conservatives are a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## Udo (Mar 27, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> Again, there's a HUGE difference between running up debt during good times - a bad thing (when it gets too far) and deficit spending DURING THE WORST RECESSION IN MODERN HISTORY!


+ 1

When a severe economic downturn is looming, it makes sense for a government to provide a stimulus, even when it means deficit spending. Things like major infrastructure projects, etc. can have a significant positive impact. Not only will a lot of people be employed, but projects like that will also have long term benefits through improved productivity, etc. 

BTW, the recent global recession had not much impact in Australia.


----------



## P.T. (Mar 27, 2010)

josejherring,

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not a liberal or a conservative either, nor a democrat or a republican.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 27, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 27 said:


> Dave C: as I keep saying, the amount of the deficit is only important as a percentage of GNP. The government is borrowing at under 1.5% interest; the service on our debt is estimated to rise to 7% of GNP, and we can afford that.
> 
> There are recent economic models that say it's unsustainable at 90% of GNP, but then why was England able to survive with a 250% rate - and climb out of it?
> 
> ...



I wish that things were presented this clearly from the media. Nick just about has me sold here. As I've said economists don't bat an eye at deficit spending. I've heard from the Republican side as well that the deficit is not nearly as important as other economic indicators such as inflation. Even so it's understandable that the many average americans are getting nervous at numbers they have never imagined. I don't think they should be accused en masse of being any sort of _ist_ because they have concerns. 

Why is everyone so up in arms about the Tea Party? It's just a group of people with their agenda like all the others out there.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2010)

By the way, our debt hasn't reached 90% of GDP yet. It's high and it's not something to take lightly, but it's not the emergency being sold by fiscal conservatives.

I always learn a lot from reading Paul Krugman's blog on NYTimes.com:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... cal-issue/


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 27, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 27 said:


> the amount of the deficit is only important as a percentage of GNP. The government is borrowing at under 1.5% interest; the service on our debt is estimated to rise to 7% of GNP, and we can afford that.



Please look at the debt, not at the deficit. Deficit always looks smaller.

Then ... what if we say we want to calculate the *service * not as a percenteage of the GNP but as a percenteage of governement *tax income*. Fair?

2009 service expenses: 380 B.$
2009 tax income: 2105 B.$
2009 service/income: 18 %

With other words 18 % of the income is spent on service. Or, if there was no debt, then 380 B.$/1725 B.$ = *22 %* more tax income could be spent the real purposes than it can be spent today.

If you ask a normal person about how much rent, interest or whatever costs he must regularly pay he will think in shares of income. So ... 18 % of income is the real number, respectively it would be 22 % more accessible income without debt.

Think for a moment what could be done with that money, year for year. The funding of additional costs for the health program would be no problem, as would be funding of theatres, orchestras, schools, universities ... all the neuralgic points.

I agree that taking up a loan can be a valuable action in emergency situations. But other than that it is more the reason for economical problems than a solution.

Of course every bank affiliated expert will be ready to disprove that immediately :mrgreen:


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 27, 2010)

Proffessors and progressive economists might be correct with thier optimistic projections, but they seem to leave out the reality of China and Suadi Arabia's affect on our debt.
If the Saudi's agree to what OPEC has been trying to do for the last 8 months, Oil will no longer be purchased using the US Dollar.
Funny how that hasn't been accounted for.
Then what about the angry Generals in China demanding the Premier flucuate their currency..?
I realize these blogs are full of intelligent predictions, and opinions. 
But in the current global outlook, a little pessimism never hurts as a hedge.
Especially when our foreign policy seems to be tied to our debt.


----------



## rgames (Mar 27, 2010)

josejherring @ Sat Mar 27 said:


> Arizona was probably the most racist place I've ever lived.


Then you don't get out much - go live in rural Georgia or Tennessee. There are still communities that are deeply segregated - e.g. many have all-white private schools that started up after desegratation.

How many people here ever heard of the Tea Party before a couple weeks ago? And all of a sudden they're supposed to be at the core of the conservative movement? Methinks we're discussing a fringe here, folks.



> Again, there's a HUGE difference between running up debt during good times - a bad thing (when it gets too far)


So you must have been livid during the Clinton presidency - he had budget surpluses and STILL ran up the debt every year! Talk about waste of taxpayer dollars...

You're still acting as though my position is against health care - I've said repeatedly that I am not against it. I am, however, against passing a bill that doesn't address the cost issue. In fact, Obama made a deal with the Pharma companies to maintain their profits. Why the hell would he do that when cost is the #1 issue? Oh yeah - he wants to pass a bill and get the recognition for it! He obviously couldn't care less what's actually in the bill. This whole bill is blatant politics.

Entitlements already eat up more tax dollars than any other type of federal spending (yes, even more than defense, folks). And we're adding *more* entitlements that are *more* expensive than those we already can't afford. Who cares what the supposed "experts" say - simple logic shows that this is a stupid idea. Again, look for the falling apple.

(Aside: remember the discussion on the "expert" opinions about how many banks would fail? And remember when I said baloney? I used the example of a typical bank, looked at how many bad assets might be on its balance sheet, and considered that as part of its total asset portfolio. I couldn't understand how the banks would do anything other than take the bail-out cash, use it to cover some short-term cash flow issues, then get right back to business. And guess what happened? I think the Wall Street bonuses explain a lot - the financial sector seems to be just fine, thank you. And I'm not even an expert.)

Good to hear that you agree that the budget estimates are baloney, though. If people weren't so insecure about their own understanding of economic matters guys like Krugman would be working a different job, probably selling used cars.

And the liberals have their share of Rush Limbaughs - Bill Maher and Michael Moore come to mind: "look at me" wind bags who take very tiny bits of fact and stretch them so thin that they're barely recognizable. But they are entertaining 

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2010)

Hannes, I'm making a clear distinction between debt service and deficit. But we are in an emergency, and the tax revenue is much higher in normal times. Plus taxes are going to have to go up.

Obviously what we're doing right now can't continue forever; my argument is that we're going to have deficits no matter what we do, so we're much better off focusing on improving the economy and avoiding the longterm consequences of 10% national unemployment (never mind that the real figure is much higher). Of course deficit spending/stimulus isn't a permanent solution, and that's why I say we need to be investing for the long term...and that's something only BIG GOVERNMENT can do, because it's not going to happen by the "free market" on its own.

Chimuelo, if the Chinese raised their currency value instead of having it about 25% artificially low, I've read that the GDP of the rest of the world would go up something like 1.5%.

And yes, it's no secret that we need to get away from oil!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2010)

http://robertreich.org/post/358773967/o ... out-of-the


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2010)

Bill Maher and Michael Moore are not Rush Limbaugh. The former is a comedian (see my post with the f-bombs in it - it's hilarious). Michael Moore is a film maker who makes a lot of very good points and captures the human aspects of what he believes in very movingly; unfortunately he also gets a few things wrong, which opens the door for conservatives to shriek at him. 

Rush Limbaugh is simply an asshole.

And I don't believe you that you're for health insurance reform. I also don't agree with your assessment of why Obama made deals with Pharma even remotely. He clearly wants to do good things for the country.

It's not at all true that he did this just for political credit - although he deserves plenty of that for pulling this off - it's because those people have a lot of power and he probably needed to cut a deal. We have a corrupt government, no question.


----------



## George Caplan (Mar 28, 2010)

Dave Connor @ Sat Mar 27 said:


> The flip side of the coin is that he is very pissed off about the burden his kids are going to have tax-wise but he felt that way after all the bailouts and prior to this bill.



the burden will be massive regardless of healthcare reform. its not just about debt or debt as a percentage of gnp/gdp. its also about who you sell bonds to to get that debt in the first place. its maybe worth mentioning that theres a lot of talk about chinas growth. but chinas growth is relative to what they were doing 5/10/20 years ago. very little. and when that growth starts to look more realistic on a global level and things tail off what will they do with all those us bonds then? :idea: t

theres tons more you could go into too.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 28, 2010)

Thank You..
Nobody from either side likes talking about that.
Cheney and Bush are responsible for my sons extended deployments since he was a Reserve Aviator, and the whole time my son was putting his life on the line these scoundrels in DC gave away Long Beach.
I was wondering why the CA GOP/DNC from California under Gray Davis didn't mind this, or the fact their energy contracts signed up in Sac damn near crippled the State.
Wouldn't you think having the Red Army's senior Generals on our soil and having traffic jams in LA as they are Chauffered around with Secret Service protection be newsworthy.? 
Well they obviously feel that deepening the non existant racial divides is more newsworthy.
When we send a tax cheat around the globe to beg for cash I tend to get nervous.
I think China wants the port of New Orleans next. The barge traffic is cheap since gravity costs nothing and the coal and ore China needs is easy to offload.
They could have a big convoy of vessels from the Carribean where their offshore Oil wells should be up and running within a few years.
We are scared of endngering a species of microscopic life so can't use the Oil off of our coastlines, but we will let the Chinese because we owe them trillions.
So declaring war on the elderly tea baggers is definately newsworthy, much more interesting than the fleecing of our nation.
But the 10,000 racists that showed up at Harry Reid house to see Sarah Palin is kind of scary.
Racist or not, that's a hell of a lot of people that follow her around.
I personally think she is 2 quotes away from a straigh jacket but the distrust and dislike for Harry reid has swolen beyond the expected staged levels.
Not a single arrest either.
I always thought racists were violent and troublesome, but the elderly here in Nevada seem to be more level headed than the negro hating slave owning racists we never saw in DC last week.


----------



## midphase (Mar 28, 2010)

Cool article about the practical effects of the Health Care Reform on everyday people....I wish the Tea Party discussed this with its members:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/23/he ... tml?hpt=C1


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 28, 2010)

They should also read this too.
http://www.hhropenforum.org/2009/07/a-% ... e-suffers/

And the article has already caused racial divisions by not including the American Indians, Asians or Hasidic Jews. Just having white and blacks represented is racist.
Below there are protests already started since the articles release.


----------



## P.T. (Mar 28, 2010)

midphase @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> Cool article about the practical effects of the Health Care Reform on everyday people....I wish the Tea Party discussed this with its members:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/23/he ... tml?hpt=C1



I don't really see the point in these stories.

There is Mr Bennet who makes $500 per month and has $70,00 in bills for his heart and a $2000 per month bill for drugs.
He doesn't like being a burden on the Gov't and thinks this bill will enable him to stop being a burden.

So, how does he pay for insurance if he only makes $500 per month?

The Gov't will have to pay.
How much is an insurance company going to charge per month to cover him in his current situation?
If they don't charge him directly for his large costs won't they have to spead that cost out by raising everyone else's premiums?

Isn't this going to raise costs?

I can see the benefit of people having coverage when they couldn't get it before, But people have been complaining for years about the very high cost of insurance that made it very difficult to afford and we get legislation that will likely raise the cost even harder.

The first woman in that story was concerned about portability of insurance.
This is a simple issue and doesn't need this legislation to fix.
The problem is that many, or most, people get their insurance from their job, so if they lose their job they lose their insurance and then have to deal with the pre-existing conditions issue.

This is just a silly way to do it.
The company should just give that money to the employee as an insurance voucer that the employee would use to buy their own insurance which would be theirs and not tied to their employment at that company.
If they lose that job, and the monthly voucer, there is already a gov't program that pays insurance for people who have lost their job. I think it is called Cobra.
Or, if they can afford it, they could just continue paying the premiums on their own.

Then they would get a new job and that employer would give them insurance vouchers.

I think we just live in a society that is incapable of clear thinking.
Simple problems always seem to need overly complex solutions that wind up creating new problems.

Instead of the emphasis that people seemed to want (lower costs) we see an emphasis on the effects on the poor (who were getting healthcare already through the gov't (as in Mr Bennet's case).

I also wonder how affordable this is going to be for low income people who have any savings.

Where I live there is a gov't program of insurance for low income people, but if they have any savings they don't qualify. They are supposed to buy private insurance until they deplete their savings and then go on the gov't program. The gov't program is as cheap as it is because it is set up so that the taxpayers fund it.

In other words, their years of frugality and personal responsibility that enabled them to save is being punished by this system and people who spend all of their income are being rewarded with low cost health care.

And before accusing me of not caring about the poor, I am low income.
I'm one of the people that has lived very frugally so that I could save in order to have money for emergencies or so that I could maybe have a chance to retire some day.
I think this bill is going to screw me by forcing me to buy insurance that I really can't afford and the the gov't most likely won't subsidize because I have savings.

Meanwhile, people who make more than I do but haven't lived frugally and saved will be rewarded with gov't subsidized health insurance.


----------



## midphase (Mar 28, 2010)

"I think this bill is going to screw me by forcing me to buy insurance that I really can't afford and the the gov't most likely won't subsidize because I have savings. "

But isn't that your responsibility as a citizen to have some form of health insurance?

This is what's confusing me...we're treating health care as some sort of luxury that some around here have compared to expensive cars or mansions...but it really isn't, it's basic living necessity because sooner or later we all get sick or injured and someone has to pay for us to get medical treatment.

I mean, we don't ask ourselves why the government is forcing us to buy car insurance, or dozens of other costs that are mandated as necessity for living...yet somehow health care ends up being the luxury item?

P.T. not only should you be glad that the government will partially subsidize you so as to allow you to afford health insurance, but you should be writing to Washington asking them to pass a public option ASAP!


----------



## P.T. (Mar 28, 2010)

midphase @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> "I think this bill is going to screw me by forcing me to buy insurance that I really can't afford and the the gov't most likely won't subsidize because I have savings. "
> 
> But isn't that your responsibility as a citizen to have some form of health insurance?
> 
> ...



Auto insurance that you are required to buy isn't to cover you it is to cover people that you harm with your car.
It's completely different. You are not thinking clearly here.

No, I don't think that people should have to buy health insurance. If the gov't doesn't want to pay the bills of people that don't have insurance then they should let it be known and then refuse to pay. It should be up to people to buy what they want.
I have no problem with the gov't mandating that you buy auto insurance because you can do much harm to people with your car.

I notice, though, that you didn't answer to any of the criticism of that article or to the solutions that I offered that wouldn't have required any serious gov't intervention.

Democrats always look to solutions that require expanded gov't power, even when it isn't needed.


----------



## rgames (Mar 28, 2010)

midphase @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> we don't ask ourselves why the government is forcing us to buy car insurance



We do ask: it's because you can cause damage to another person or his property with your vehicle and you need insurance to cover that liability. Not a great example.

Health care will be a luxury until the costs come down, regardless of how much legisltation we pass. The problem is that nobody in government is willing to take on any element of the health care establishment. Witness Obama's backroom deals to ensure profits (where is the "change" in that?).

What the country needs is a leader who will step up and fight the health care establishment. Obama is so desperate for credit he doesn't care what's passed so long as he can fool the public into thinking it's "Health Care Reform" and Congress is too worried about re-election to take on such a powerful lobby.

Cost is the #1 issue. Period.

Until someone in DC makes that the focus of the argument, all we're doing is writing checks that we can't cover.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Mar 28, 2010)

One other thought - part of the CBO's cost estimate assumed that doctor's fees would be reduced by 21%.

Has anyone seen a member of Congress sign up to vote that one through? That'll be the day...

That's the way shady leadership works: backroom deals and outrageous assumptions hidden in the estimates because they know the public aren't going to dig deep enough to find them.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Mar 29, 2010)

"Auto insurance that you are required to buy isn't to cover you it is to cover people that you harm with your car. 
It's completely different. You are not thinking clearly here. "


I think it's you that is not thinking clearly. So harm to another should be covered by insurance...but what about harm to yourself? Either way somebody has to foot the bill if you're dying...right? Or would you prefer that if you have a heart attack while walking on the sidewalk that they just leave you there to die?

By your reasoning, car insurance is not needed if the government would step in anyway and pay for any harm that you have inflicted on the other person...right? I mean...what's the difference when it really comes down to it?

Further, if you consider health care a luxury...why not basic education? Why shouldn't basic retirement be a luxury as well? What about medications for the elderly? Luxury right? What about having a fire truck show up if your house catches on fire? Shouldn't that be a luxury as well?

At what point do we, as a leading World nation draw the line as to what is a luxury and what isn't? It seems to me that as we progress in our quest to become evolved human beings, that line gets pushed further and further up. It is entirely conceivable to me that in a century, things that we take as luxury items right now will be deemed government provided basic necessities not any differently than 100 years ago basic work safety guidelines or minimum work wages were considered luxuries than not everyone had access to.

We're talking about figuring out ways to provide everyone with free or almost free internet broadband access for godsake! And yet the basic idea of being able to go to a doctor if you're feeling ill is viewed as a luxury? 

In that case I think we have an irreconcilable philosophical difference here. I want for everyone to have access to basic medical care and have the government not only pay for it but also manage it. In exchange, I am totally willing to pay higher taxes, and if that means I won't be able to afford to go out to fancy restaurants as often, or that I might have to give up premium cable, or not buy that PS3, or not afford that new sample library....so be it. In my mind, a socialized health care system is 100% justified and worth it.

You guys obviously don't share this view, and would prefer to pay less taxes instead and let the poor who get ill either die or resort to get the government to pay for it anyway...only in an extremely inefficient and dysfunctional way. I believe yours is a selfish, narrow and non-compassionate point of view meant to only benefit your own personal bottom line and nothing else...and all I can say is--thank god our president is more human than that!


----------



## midphase (Mar 29, 2010)

Yet another good article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html


----------



## P.T. (Mar 29, 2010)

"I think it's you that is not thinking clearly. So harm to another should be covered by insurance...but what about harm to yourself? Either way somebody has to foot the bill if you're dying...right? Or would you prefer that if you have a heart attack while walking on the sidewalk that they just leave you there to die?"

This is only true if you think it is the Gov't duty to pay for someone who doesn't want to be forced to buy a product that they don't want.

"At what point do we, as a leading World nation..."

Not interested in being a leading world nation.

"In that case I think we have an irreconcilable philosophical difference here. :

Of course we do. That has been apparent from the beginning. It's also why we have more than one political party. Maybe you think we should only have one. Yours.


"You guys obviously don't share this view, and would prefer to pay less taxes instead and let the poor who get ill either die or resort to get the government to pay for it anyway...only in an extremely inefficient and dysfunctional way."

I have covered this and more in my posts which you either don't read or refuse to acknowledge.

You have never relied to any substantive point I have made. You just selectively refer to the smallest point or the one that you can snipe at.

Like this post.
You only relied to the last point which wasn't even the main substance of the post.

_____________________
"I think this bill is going to screw me by forcing me to buy insurance that I really can't afford and the the gov't most likely won't subsidize because I have savings. "

But isn't that your responsibility as a citizen to have some form of health insurance?

This is what's confusing me...we're treating health care as some sort of luxury that some around here have compared to expensive cars or mansions...but it really isn't, it's basic living necessity because sooner or later we all get sick or injured and someone has to pay for us to get medical treatment.

I mean, we don't ask ourselves why the government is forcing us to buy car insurance, or dozens of other costs that are mandated as necessity for living...yet somehow health care ends up being the luxury item?

P.T. not only should you be glad that the government will partially subsidize you so as to allow you to afford health insurance, but you should be writing to Washington asking them to pass a public option ASAP!
____________________
You ignore the rest and jump on the part that allows you to call for my support for the bill.

Just like everyone ignored when I asked why the democrats hadn't repealed the Patriot act or why they have never tried to make the tax system fair by removing people below the poverty level from the tax roles.

Or why they demonized the flat tax idea that would have removed the poor from the tax roles and even removed the lower middle class from paying tax because of the $13,500 deduction for single people plus extra deductions for spouse and children.

Discussion is fruitless if people aren't going to read and reply.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2010)

> No, I don't think that people should have to buy health insurance.



According to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, if the legal challenges to the bill succeed (strange word to use for a failure!) then people won't have to. Instead they'll be able to opt out and be excluded for five years - which was a good alternative anyway.


----------



## Dynamitec (Mar 29, 2010)

> Auto insurance that you are required to buy isn't to cover you it is to cover people that you harm with your car.
> It's completely different. You are not thinking clearly here.



@P.T.: If it's that easy to get a point, I can do the same:

So what if you've got the flu in an early stage, you'll visit the cinema and you'll infect all people around you (some of them without health insurance, because they can't afford it)? What are you saying now? It's the same point you've made above. You are harming other peoples in that case.


----------



## P.T. (Mar 29, 2010)

Dynamitec @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> > Auto insurance that you are required to buy isn't to cover you it is to cover people that you harm with your car.
> > It's completely different. You are not thinking clearly here.



@P.T.: If it's thaò­   Ë¨)­   Ë¨*­   Ë¨+­   Ë¨,­   Ë¨-­   Ë¨.­   Ë¨/­   Ë¨0­   Ë¨1­   Ë¨2­   Ë¨3­   Ë¨4­   Ë¨5­   Ë¨6­   Ë¨7­   Ë¨8­   Ë¨9­   Ë¨:­   Ë¨;­   Ë¨<­   Ë¨=­   Ë¨>­   Ë¨?­   Ë¨@­   Ë¨A­   Ë¨B­   Ë¨C­   Ë¨D­   Ë¨E­   Ë¨F­   Ë¨G­   Ë¨H­   Ë¨I­   Ë¨J­   Ë¨K­   Ë¨L­   Ë¨M­   Ë¨N­   Ë¨O­   Ë¨P­   Ë¨Q­   Ë¨R­   Ë¨S­   Ë­ö­   Ë­÷­   Ë­ø­   Ë­ù­   Ë­ú­   Ë­û­   Ë­ü­   Ë­ý­   Ë­þ­   Ë­ÿ­   Ë® ­   Ë®­   Ë®­   Ë®­   Ë¨T­   Ë¨U­   Ë¨V­   Ë¨W­   Ë¨X­   Ë¨Y­   Ë¨Z­   Ë¨[­   Ë¨\­   Ë¨]­   Ë¨^­   Ë¨_­   Ë¨`­   Ë¨a­   Ë¨b­   Ë¨c­   Ë¨d­   Ë¨e­   Ë¨f­   Ë¨g­   Ë¨h­   Ë¨i­   Ë¨j­   Ë¨k­   Ë¨l­   Ë¨m­   Ë¨n­   Ë¨o­   Ë¨p­   Ë¨q­   Ë¨r­   Ë¨s­   Ë¨t­   Ë¨u­   Ë¨v­   Ë¨w­   Ë¨x­   Ë¨y­   Ë¨z­   Ë¨{­   Ë¨|­   Ë¨}­   Ë¨~­   Ë¨­   Ë¨€­   Ë¨­   Ë¨‚­   Ë¨ƒ­   Ë¨„­   Ë¨…­   Ë¨†­   Ë¨‡­   Ë¨ˆ­   Ë¨‰­   Ë¨Š              ò­   Ë¨Œ­   Ë¨­   Ë¨Ž­   Ë¨­   Ë¨­   Ë¨‘­   Ë¨’­   Ë¨“­   Ë¨”­   Ë¨•­   Ë¨–­   Ë¨—­   Ë¨˜­   Ë¨™­   Ë¨š­   Ë¨›­   Ë¨œ­   Ë¨­   Ë¨ž­   Ë¨Ÿ­   Ë¨ ­   Ë¨¡­   Ë¨¢­   Ë¨£­   Ë¨¤­   Ë¨¥­   Ë¨¦­   Ë¨§­   Ë¨¨­   Ë¨©­   Ë¨ª­   Ë¨«­   Ë¨¬­   Ë¨­­   Ë¨®­   Ë¨¯­   Ë¨°­   Ë¨±­   Ë¨²­   Ë¨³­   Ë¨´­   Ë¨µ­   Ë¨¶­   Ë¨·­   Ë¨¸­   Ë¨¹­   Ë¨º­   Ë¨»­   Ë¨¼­   Ë¨½­   Ë¨¾­   Ë¨¿­   Ë¨À­   Ë¨Á­   Ë¨Â­   Ë¨Ã­   Ë¨Ä­   Ë¨Å­   Ë¨Æ­   Ë¨Ç­   Ë¨È­   Ë¨É­   Ë¨Ê­   Ë¨Ë­   Ë¨Ì­   Ë¨Í­


----------



## midphase (Mar 29, 2010)

"You ignore the rest and jump on the part that allows you to call for my support for the bill. 

Just like everyone ignored when I asked why the democrats hadn't repealed the Patriot act or why they have never tried to make the tax system fair by removing people below the poverty level from the tax roles. 

Or why they demonized the flat tax idea that would have removed the poor from the tax roles and even removed the lower middle class from paying tax because of the $13,500 deduction for single people plus extra deductions for spouse and children. 

Discussion is fruitless if people aren't going to read and reply."

P.T.

Nobody is ignoring parts of your posts, but we're specifically focused on health care now and not the patriot act.

However....I can speculate as to why: 

The Patriot Act - let's be honest here...the moment the Democrats try to repeal something actually called the "PATRIOT" act it's political suicide. They would be demonized beyond anything you have seen until now, being called anti-American, pro-terrorist and who knows what else very likely by guys just like yourself. Talk about energizing the Tea Party!

Flat Tax - look, the flat tax idea has been around for a long time. This is not something that has been pooped on by the Democrats, but all of the Republicans administrations as well. Nick addressed this before (perhaps you didn't read his post?) and said that flat tax shifts the burden downward rather than up. When it comes down to it, guys that are way smarter than you or me on either side of the isle have looked at the idea of a Flat Tax and made a determination that it isn't such a great idea. Maybe it has to do with the fact that in order to bring in enough money, it would end up being too high? Maybe the reason is something else? I'm not sure, but I have to trust that the issue has been explored by economists and that they have made a determination not to pursue it for some valid reasons.


Regarding the idea that one can opt out of health care, or when one refuses it out of principle...when that person gets sick as to require hospitalization, will they refuse that as well? And if they refused categorically to contribute (however minimally) to get some basic health care, who will pay for their stubbornness?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2010)

The other problem with a flat tax - or with a VAT, which as far as I can see is the same thing with a different name, except that it doesn't replace income tax - is that there's a reason our tax code is so complicated.

And the reason is that there are many things that shouldn't be taxed, tax incentives to promote and discover [edit: discourage, not discover!] all kinds of behavior...in short, the tax code has to be very detailed.

The same applies to health insurance reform, of course. Using the size of the bill used as an argument against it was about as stupid as calling it Socialism.


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 2, 2010)

This is not only sad, but disturbing. I think the first time I heard about teabaggers was in reference to some people supporting Ron Paul, who I actually like and respect, though can't fully say I'd want for President. Maybe. Similar support was given to respected economist Peter Schiff, as he was against all the wars, all the bailouts, all the stimulus's, etc. due to their high cost, lack of economic principle, and government potential for collusion/corruption in such bills. 

Those discussing the potential implementation and theories of Paul and Schiff 2-3 years ago are completely different to what the so-called teabaggers of today represent. Today's teabaggers seem to be this extreme lunatic fringe. The Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nicholes, James Ear Ray faction of society. Further to the extreme than Lee Atwater or Karl Rove. 

What makes it most strange, is that their plan, or what you can find from it, is ripe for manipulation from the _neoconservatives_ at least as far as interventionist, nation building, or tolerance of corporate-government collusion and selective supply-side tax cuts and incentives; even if it's against their own economic interest, and involves federal government activity.


----------

