View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
The plan that was "floated" was not even close to what the libelous email claimed. It did not ask the vets themselves to pay any extra money. If Obama had said the things that he was accused of in the email, Fox would have beaten it to a pulp, and I doubt very much that other media outlets would ignore it (although some might)
It's bogus and doesn't prove anything regarding Obama's actions or character.
There was probably an email campaign behind that poll to get Republicans and Christians to vote. They have a leadership vacuum and few real solutions of their own to offer, so their strategy is to try and portray Obama as a failure any way they can.
There was probably an email campaign behind that poll to get Republicans and Christians to vote. They have a leadership vacuum and few real solutions of their own to offer, so their strategy is to try and portray Obama as a failure any way they can.Hi,
Yes, and we all know that Liberals / Democrats would never do such a thing themselves.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson
Hi,
Yes, and we all know that Liberals / Democrats would never do such a thing themselves.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
JacksonMr. Jackson:
Do not believe the Democrats / liberals can take polls to the extremes the right wing element in this country can and have done. They have no sense of decency: Karl Rove. Case in point; John McCain, via a phony poll during the 2004 Republican Primary. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain. If you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh. It takes a real first class dueschebag to stoop to that level to get elected or promote their agenda. The sad thing in all of this is, it worked and McCain lost the primaries and here we are. It is very difficult for me to give any credibility much of anything the Republicans have to say today after what we have experienced over the past 9 years. The record speaks for itself.
Mr. Jackson:
Do not believe the Democrats / liberals can take polls to the extremes the right wing element in this country can and have done. They have no sense of decency: Karl Rove. Case in point; John McCain, via a phony poll during the 2004 Republican Primary. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain. If you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh. It takes a real first class dueschebag to stoop to that level to get elected or promote their agenda. The sad thing in all of this is, it worked and McCain lost the primaries and here we are. It is very difficult for me to give any credibility much of anything the Republicans have to say today after what we have experienced over the past 9 years. The record speaks for itself.Hi Damman,
I did not suggest that professional pollsters could not and did not craft their polling questions to yield a desired outcome.
What I was responding to in my post was Esten's complaint that results in the open poll referred to by Sydney were distorted by a deliberate "email campaign" perpetrated by persons or organizations not related to the publisher of the poll, said campaign intended to distort the results of the poll by encouraging "Republicans and Christians to vote" in the poll.
All you need to do is visit the DailyKOSs, the HuffingtonPost or any other left wing website and you'll find that as a standard practice the participants in these websites routinely post links to "open polls" on other sites while encouraging like-minded persons to "vote left and vote often", the specific intent being to tilt the poll results in their favor.
Thanks,
Jackson
It is astounding that the economy of the United States appears to flourish when the economy of the United States has three strikes against it before it gets to bat.
1) The most attorney happy country with the most ridiculous injury awards in the known world.
2) A health care system that costs at least twice as much per capita as any other health care system. This without any indication that the health care system is twice as good, or even as good, as some other health care systems.
3) The highest military expenditures in the known world.
Perhaps the economy of the United States carries this weight because the economy of the United States is the T Rex of the known world.
However, it is more likely the wealth of the United States is an illusion. The United States has prospered on borrowed money.
The day will come when our debtors will demand a return of their money.
Maybe then the United States and Argentina will have a common bond. Neither country can service its debt.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_co/us_rove_prosecutors
Exon
Obama Says Grandmother's Hip Replacement Raises Cost Questions.
Share | Email | Print | A A A.
By Hans Nichols.
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother's hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a "sustainable model" for health care.
The president's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson's election victory.
"I don't know how much that hip replacement cost," Obama said in the interview. "I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother."
Obama said "you just get into some very difficult moral issues" when considering whether "to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill.
"That's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues," he said in the April 14 interview. "The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here."
Obama promised during his presidential campaign that a health-care overhaul would be a top priority, and he said at a Missouri town hall meeting today that he hopes Congress will pass health-care legislation this year.
The issue has been divisive, and finding an answer that will keep costs down while extending coverage to the estimated 46 million Americans without health insurance has eluded past presidents.
'Ruthless Pragmatism'
Obama also said his economic advisers aren't constrained by ideology or connections to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. "What I've been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy," he said, in the interview.
Obama also pointed to Canada as an example of a country that has effectively regulated commercial and investment banking without requiring legal separation of those activities.
"When it comes to something like investment banking versus commercial banking, the experience in a country like Canada would indicate that good, strong regulation that focuses less on the legal form of the institution and more on the functions that they're carrying out is probably the right approach to take," he said.
******The reason Obama's grandmother was given a hip replacement with just weeks to live is because under our present payment system the doctor doing the worthless hip replacement will be paid for doing it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that physcians would have given Obama's grandmother a facelift and tummy tuck with just weeks to live if they were going to be paid for doing it.
There is no easy answer to how to shape our medical payment system. However, I for one, think we are not going far enough. We should draw a line in the sand. Medical costs will be restricted to 10% of GNP.
If that means incorrigible alcoholics won't receive liver transplants, smokers won't receive surgery for their incurable lung cancers or Obama's grandmother won't receive a hip transplant - so be it.
There might be a method behind Obama's madness.
Existing Medicare and Medicaid have $38 billion in unfunded liabilities! There is nothing in this plan to address this severe problem!A drop in the ocean compared to the 1000 billion increase of net federal debt every 6 month, 38% increase over a year.
There was probably an email campaign behind that poll to get Republicans and Christians to vote. They have a leadership vacuum and few real solutions of their own to offer, so their strategy is to try and portray Obama as a failure any way they can.Hi Esten,
Actually, your contention that Republicans have "few real solutions of their own to offer" is completely inaccurate.
Republicans and other conservatives have made and continue to offer a number of ideas, although these ideas are not even being considered by the Democrats who control Congress and who refuse to allow the Republicans to participate in the debates therein. In addition, the liberal-dominated media rarely, if ever, presents these Republican ideas because they are in bed with Obama and thus wish to perpetuate the idea that the Republicans are "out of ideas".
Anyway, a few of the ideas that I have heard espoused by conservatives include.
1. Create a national market for health insurance. For those of you who don't understand the issue, at the current time you can only buy health insurance from an insurer that is approved to sell insurance in your state, which of course restricts competition. A national marketplace would allow you to shop and purchase health insurance from insurers all over the country.
2. Medical tort reform, which would reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and which will reduce the expensive practice of "defensive medicine". This isn't even mentioned in any of the Democrat's plans, largely because the Democratic party is beholden to the country's litigation attorneys.
3. Allow individuals and businesses to form pools and buy insurance anywhere in the country, not just in the state where they live.
4. Allow employees to opt out of their employer-based insurance plan and get a $5,000-per-family tax credit to buy health insurance or pay medical bills.
5. Require insurance companies to offer insurance regardless of a person's pre-existing medical condition.
There are lots of other ideas, but this is just the short list I recall from memory.
Thanks,
Jackson
Hi Esten,
Actually, your contention that Republicans have "few real solutions of their own to offer" is completely inaccurate.
Republicans and other conservatives have made and continue to offer a number of ideas, although these ideas are not even being considered by the Democrats who control Congress and who refuse to allow the Republicans to participate in the debates therein. In addition, the liberal-dominated media rarely, if ever, presents these Republican ideas because they are in bed with Obama and thus wish to perpetuate the idea that the Republicans are "out of ideas".
Anyway, a few of the ideas that I have heard espoused by conservatives include.
1. Create a national market for health insurance. For those of you who don't understand the issue, at the current time you can only buy health insurance from an insurer that is approved to sell insurance in your state, which of course restricts competition. A national marketplace would allow you to shop and purchase health insurance from insurers all over the country.
2. Medical tort reform, which would reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and which will reduce the expensive practice of "defensive medicine". This isn't even mentioned in any of the Democrat's plans, largely because the Democratic party is beholden to the country's litigation attorneys.
3. Allow individuals and businesses to form pools and buy insurance anywhere in the country, not just in the state where they live.
4. Allow employees to opt out of their employer-based insurance plan and get a $5,000-per-family tax credit to buy health insurance or pay medical bills.
5. Require insurance companies to offer insurance regardless of a person's pre-existing medical condition.
There are lots of other ideas, but this is just the short list I recall from memory.
Thanks,
JacksonNot being a US citizen and not ordinarily wanting to take part in debates on US issues, health being this issue, I can't help but weigh-in. Am I wrong or am I wrong, in remembering that GWB and his father as well, were in positions during their presidencies where they could have made sense of the farcical and expensive medical insurance system that delivers the smallest bang for the buck as far as universal cover is concerned in the world. Yet they made no great efforts. It strikes me that the Republican policy developers are being reactive rather than proactive. Not the way to win future elections. The GOP must lead from the front and develope new proactive policies, apart from health, instead of carping and whining about policies that the Democrats went to the polls on and won as a consequence. I think that the system the Democrats want to bring in, is unworkable, but they have their mandate. Let them f-u-c-k it up and fix it later. Meanwhile there are a host of policy developement in other areas crying out for attention. And they could be election winners.
Argento
Not being a US citizen and not ordinarily wanting to take part in debates on US issues, health being this issue, I can't help but weigh-in. Am I wrong or am I wrong, in remembering that GWB and his father as well, were in positions during their presidencies where they could have made sense of the farcical and expensive medical insurance system that delivers the smallest bang for the buck as far as universal cover is concerned in the world. Yet they made no great efforts. It strikes me that the Republican policy developers are being reactive rather than proactive. Not the way to win future elections. The GOP must lead from the front and develope new proactive policies, apart from health, instead of carping and whining about policies that the Democrats went to the polls on and won as a consequence. I think that the system the Democrats want to bring in, is unworkable, but they have their mandate. Let them f-u-c-k it up and fix it later. Meanwhile there are a host of policy developement in other areas crying out for attention. And they could be election winners.
ArgentoHi Argento,
You are correct that the Republicans did not make health care an issue under the Bush Presidency, and for a very good reason that still holds true today.
The fact was and is that 90% of American Citizens actually have health insurance, and that 80% are "satisfied" with their current health insurance and with the quality of the services they receive.
In other words, there is no health care emergency!
The entire Health Care Reform (now repackaged as Health Insurance Reform) "emergency" is a completely fabricated issue being pushed by the Democrats at this time because the Dems, who have always coveted the idea of controlling the country's health care industry, see this precise moment in time as the best opportunity to push through said takeover.
When I say that they see "this precise moment in time as the best opportunity", I am referring to the fact that they believe that the fervor associated with the Obama election in conjunction with atmosphere of the current economic "emergency" as the opportune moment to ram-rod this through, especially given their sure and certain knowledge that their leader will soon be unveiled as the radical left wing extremist that he is, after which they will no longer be able to fool clear-thinking Americans.
Thanks,
Jackson
I want to know where those %'s come from. I know you to be an honest man, but your sourse is wrong. I hope that you don't trust the emails that Sid relies on for his info on issues outside of his expertise.
The current comsumer reports magazine has a special on this issue. I pay almost $10,000 us dolars per year for bad insurance which generally pays ZERO, but I must have it is case of catestrophic illness. The insurance industry lobbyists.
Have purchased the votes of most of the members of the congress--both republicans and democratics. The large drug companies have the same deal.
IN terms of poling data--discussed on cnbc special panel discussions on the health care crisis. Even the health insurance excutives did not challenge that the usa is ranked #37 is the world for quality of health care, yet it is the most expensive. The problem is very complex and there are no easy answers. France is ranked #!
I for one am ready for a public option. Walley's be-school analysis of the issues clearly convinced me that health care becomes a set of ethical dilemas about allocating resourse and the wealthy can buy whatever additional insurance they want, I don't want mba cash flow analysis deciding who lives and who dies. It is about time that the usa joins most of modern first world societies and has some sort of universal coverage.
Jackon, who I like and personally respect, has a very different view. I truly hope that those with his view do not prevail. The health care industry is spending 100's of millions of dollars on propaganda on Televisdon nowto scare people into not supporting reform. There is all sorts of misinformation on the internet and on television.
I actally read the famous page 425[sid discussed it below]--it says that counseling shall be, made avaiable to all senior citizens about end of life issues. Most health insurance in the usa does not cover or has very limited coverage for psychological counseling nor psychotherapy. My fancy policy has zero coverage for couseling about anything. We are talking about issues like--accetance that you will die from a terminal illness--I have zero coverage for this. Counseling about ordering that you are not to be kept artifically allive wheh your brain has stopped working and there is zero chance of you coming out of this state--I have zero coverage for this type of help.
80% 0f the health care dollars are spent on 20% of the patient population.
I cannot switch to another policy because age and pre-existing conditions even though I am healthy enough to fuck 10 times per week if pushed. I have Zero choice. If I ever lose my current shitty coverage, the only insurance that I could possibly buy will cost double and provide $250,000 in life time coverage---in the usa a major heart attack w / by-pass surgery, cancer or other catestrophic illness would wipe my life time coverage. My current policy is capped at us$5,000,000.
I am very upper middle class in terms of my income and assets and I can't locate decent coverage at any price.
Here are the problems as I see them with the current House of Representatives approach to healthcare insurance.
1. Neither the House nor the Senate cares to tackle the issue of medical tort reform, which plays a material roll in driving up healthcare insurance premiums. For any surgeon, his or her largest annual variable cost is their liability insurance premium. The reason neither chamber will pursue tort reform is because both Houses and Parties are so beholden to the legal fraternity.
2. The House's level premium approach for all person's regardless of age, health, or life style means that those of us who choose to pursue a healthy life style for whatever reasons, will be subsidizing the drug user, the alcoholic, and the obese.
3. No one reading this believes for one minute that a Federal Healthcare insurance program will be revenue neutral. The Federal Government has NEVER run a large program in a revenue neutral manner. The average tax payer, as in you and me, will end up paying more taxes to support a group of people that presently are not insured and not willing to work in many cases. I have zero desire to help these people out. What is in the present proposed legislation that will help a middle class person out who is currently insured [the vast majority of us], playing by the rules and does not want to see his or her taxes increase? Nothing.
4. I would encourage the Federal Government to start a program through a payroll deduction scheme for catastrophic care of all citizens to include those born with severe problems.
5. Make individual healthcare insurance premiums tax deductible just the way they are for companies.
6. Repeal all State laws that prevent medical insurance companies from competing across State lines.
7. Allow States to form drug purchasing cooperatives for their residents.
There is one question to be asked to wonder if the us american health system needs a reform:
Since the US have the global record on health spendings per head, why are health scores so low: one of the lowest life expectancies of western democracies and infantile death comparable to third world countries. Where do the inefficiencies come from? How to solve them?
Interesting take on this from The Telegraph, a right wing UK newspaper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6030211/Briton-providing-free-healthcare-to-thousands-of-Americans.html
Can someone tell me why all these people queue all day for a free clinic? Are they too mean or stupid to pay for their own care? I just can't understand why there's a need for something like this when the system is supposed to be so good.
MataHari,
"Since the US have the global record on health spendings per head, why are health scores so low: one of the lowest life expectancies of western democracies and infantile death comparable to third world countries."
I just checked this out on http://www.who.int/whosis/en/ the World Health Organisation site. Seems like what you say is true.
Our health care delivery system is a mess.
80% of health care costs are incured in the last year of life.
80% of health care costs are incured by 20% of the population.
If health care is a right the reverse is also true: if you smoke, eat yourself into a whale, drink until your liver is nonexistent, your right to health care for these conditions is questionable.
Whatever happens with Obama's health care proposals, it can't be worse than what we have now.
We are spending, per capita, twice what the next country is spending for health care. Yet countries spending one half, one quarter, or in the case of Cuba, 2% of what we spend on health care have, as far as I can tell, similar or better health care progarms.
P.S. one reason Cubans have admirable life expectancies might be that Cubans are starving to death ~~ no fatties in Cuba ~~ gracias a el bastardo Castro
I want to know where those %'s come from. I know you to be an honest man, but your source is wrong. I hope that you don't trust the emails that Sid relies on for his info on issues outside of his expertise.Hi MB,
A Google search yielded a number of articles, but here are links to some reports from what I believe are relatively neutral sources:
======================================================
From the CDC.
Lack of health insurance and type of coverage:
Released 9/2008
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/200809_01.pdf
Figure 1.1. Percentage of persons of all ages without health insurance coverage at the time of interview: United States
Data table for Figure 1.1. Percentage of persons of all ages without health insurance coverage at the time of interview: United States
And also...
Health Insurance Coverage Trends, 19592007:
Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey
July 1, 2009
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf
======================================================
Regarding the percentage of insured persons who are satsfied with their current insurance...
ABC News/USA TODAY/Kaiser Family Foundation health care poll
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-15-health-poll1.htm
Poll Question #13 is specifically on subject.
======================================================
The CDC reports approximately 15% of the people surveyed did not have health insurance, but this number INCLUDES the 10+ million illegal aliens in the country, which if subtracted from their percentages total reduces the percentage of AMERICAN CITIZENS without health insurance to approximately 12%.
Thanks,
Jackson
AllIWantIsLove
08-15-09, 01:18
There is one question to be asked to wonder if the us american health system needs a reform:
Since the US have the global record on health spendings per head, why are health scores so low: one of the lowest life expectancies of western democracies and infantile death comparable to third world countries. Where do the inefficiencies come from? How to solve them?I suspect that part of the answer is that we are lazy and fat. I doubt that the statistics we are seeing take that into account.
Bob
The link you provides leads to a National Institue of Heath survey--most of which are done as telephone intervews. People without listed telephone numbers do not participate. The definition of "health insurance" includes all forms of accident insurance.
This would mean that a under this defination: all motor vehicles that are legally registerred have an form of health coverage attached. For purposes of this survey, you have a form of health insurance if you live in a household that has a legally registerred motor vehicle.
Most states to renew your plate you have to demonstrate Personal Injury Protection--many times the min is $10,000. With up to a $5,000 deductible.
This covers injuries only in motor vehicle accidents. This is included in the definition of health insurance for political reasons--not logical reasons so intelligent people like yourself might be mislead.
If this is what you mean by health insurance that people are statisfied with, we haved walked through the looking glass ==like Alice in Woderland. The Bushies commissioned many misleading studies like this one to prove how wonderful their "ownership society" was doing. You remember the "ownership society" wherein you could own a home with no income, no job and bad credit. What a wonderful idea! Write a mortgage for anyone breathing and we'll worry about it later.
Looking at the survey results further: chart 1.2 shows that, including "accident insurance" over 30% of the population aged 18-34 lacked any form of "health insurance". Chart 1.2 shows that over 30% of all hispanics lack any form of health insurance including any form of accident insurance.
I'M SURE THAT NO ONE IN THIS DISCUSSION CONSIDERS AUTOMOBILE PIP AS HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE CURRENT DEBATE.
You are calling car accident insurance health insurance. When I buy an airplane ticket I have included for free on my credit card "accident insurance". I would not count on accident insurance if you fall down the steps or have cancer.
In 2006 my current policy costs about us$600 per month. Less coverage with a higher deductible today is just over us$900 per month.
The survey [w / o comments on how it was designed ie statistcally random sample or readers of USA Today] says that 87% are satisfied with their healthcare coverage. I was satisfied at some point in time. Every year there is less coverage at a higher price and less comsumer friendly claims practices.
Under age 65 in 2007 running up from a stable 21% from 1968 to 1980 when the increase in uninsureds began rising. This is the abstract of a review of the National Heath Insurance Surveys from 1967 to 2007. These are random statistically sampled surveys which would not included households without telephones ie the poor or those who cannot afford a telephone.
I was turned down by 6 A rated or better carriers--they would not write me at any cost and accepted by one unrated company out of Bermuda owned by a Barbados company. The only thing offerred was $250,000. Liftime cap w / a 5,000 deductible hmo which only worked with substandard hospitals w / hi mortality rates---ie they kill an un usually large % of patients.
So I am staying with my bullshit group of one because I have zero choice. The private sector has failed me and the invisible hand of the market place has told me: fuck-you, you are not profitable--drop dead both figuratively and literally. My 6 other employees work for a different corp and get $250,000 liftime caps and services at hospuials that kills people--delightful.
The Republican talking points are great for the health care industry and will kill people like me and my employees. WE are not statistically average but this is our story.
I suspect that part of the answer is that we are lazy and fat. I doubt that the statistics we are seeing take that into account.
BobThat s another positive effect of a government in charge of citizens health insurance. The government becomes responsible for the costs and needs to act to offer preemptive solutions, rather than waiting to cure, which is always more expensive.
A federally coordinated preemptive war on the obesity pandemics in the USA with information campains on daily basis would actually save money and lives.
The link you provides leads to a National Institute of Heath survey--most of which are done as telephone interviews. People without listed telephone numbers do not participate. The definition of "health insurance" includes all forms of accident insurance.Okay, let me draw another conclusion from the same statistics: If they can afford to own a car and pay for auto insurance, then they can afford to pay for their own fucking health insurance.
Thanks,
Jackson
Member #4112
08-15-09, 15:28
Obama's arguments must be pretty weak if he has to use a supporter's 11 year old daughter as a set piece to read a prepared question for him to field during his town hall meeting recently. After this little get together reporters found at least 20 major contradictions between what Obama said was in the bill and what was actually written. Even the great Obama doesn't know what is in his own legislation! Can you say "pig in a poke"?
Most folks are happy with the coverage they have and don't want the government to step in and take it over after such sterling examples as the US Postal Service, Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare. In case you didn't know, Congress has a separate healthcare and retirement system in which we lowly taxpayers who fund it are not permitted to participate. Now if Congress were FORCED under the same healthcare plan they are trying to force upon us and Congress was also FORCED under Social Security you can bet the healthcare plans being floated now would change drastically and suddenly Social Security would become a gold plated plan.
Doesn't anybody snap to the fact Congress never participates in the great social planning experiments they force on the rest of the country? Don't you folks realize there is a two tier system at work here, one for those who govern and the second lower tier for those who are governed and forced to pay the bill for all?
You might convince me to go with nationalized healthcare if Congress and do mean all of them (including those retired and living off the fat of the land) had to come under it as well.
This an old speech by Hoover, way back when (1928): Rugged Individualism. Think it is a timely piece. Am an Obama guy, but the idea of government getting bigger does scare the hell out of me. No easy choices. Maybe it is worth a read for some.
I intend to discuss some of those more fundamental principles upon which I believe the government of the United States should be conducted.
During one hundred and fifty years we have builded up a form of self government and a social system which is peculiarly our own. It differs essentially from all others in the world. It is the American system. It is founded upon the conception that only through ordered liberty, freedom and equal opportunity to the individual will his initiative and enterprise spur on the march of progress. And in our insistence upon equality of opportunity has our system advanced beyond all the world.
During [World War I] we necessarily turned to the government to solve every difficult economic problem. The government having absorbed every energy of our people for war, there was no other solution. For the preservation of the state the Federal Government became a centralized despotism which undertook unprecedented responsibilities, assumed autocratic powers, and took over the business of citizens. To a large degree, we regimented our whole people temporally into a socialistic state. However justified in war time, if continued in peace-time it would destroy not only our American system but with it our progress and freedom as well.
When the war closed, the most vital of issues both in our own country and around the world was whether government should continue their wartime ownership and operation of many [instruments] of production and distribution. We were challenged with a. Choice between the American system of rugged individualism and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines doctrines of paternalism and state socialism. The acceptance of these ideas would have meant the destruction of self-government through centralization. [and] the undermining of the individual initiative and enterprise through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness.
The Republican Party [in the years after the war] resolutely turned its face away from these ideas and war practices. When the Republican Party came into full power it went at once resolutely back to our fundamental conception of the state and the rights and responsibility of the individual. Thereby it restored confidence and hope in the American people, it freed and stimulated enterprise, it restored the government to a position as an umpire instead of a player in the economic game. For these reasons the American people have gone forward in progress.
There is [in this election]. Submitted to the American people a question of fundamental principle. That is: shall we depart from the principles of our American political and economic system, upon which we have advanced beyond all the rest of the world.
I would like to state to you the effect that. [an interference] of government in business would have upon our system of self-government and our economic system. That effect would reach to the daily life of every man and woman. It would impair the very basis of liberty and freedom.
Let us first see the effect on self-government. When the Federal Government undertakes to go into commercial business it must at once set up the organization and administration of that business, and it immediately finds itself in a labyrinth. Commercial business requires a concentration of responsibility. Our government to succeed in business would need to become in effect a despotism. There at once begins the destruction of self-government.
It is a false liberalism that interprets itself into the government operation of commercial business. Every step of bureaucratizing of the business of our country poisons the very roots of liberalism that is political equality, free speech, free assembly, free press and equality of opportunity. It is not the road to more liberty, but to less liberty. Liberalism should not be striving to spread bureaucracy but striving to set bounds to it.
Liberalism is a force truly of the spirit, a force proceeding from the deep realization that economic freedom cannot be sacrificed if political freedom is to be preserved. [An expansion of the governmentνs role in the business world] would cramp and cripple the mental and spiritual energies of our people. It would extinguish equality and opportunity. It would dry up the spirit of liberty and progress. For a hundred and fifty years liberalism has found its true spirit in the American system, not in the European systems.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am defining general policy. I have already stated that where the government is engaged in public works for purposes of flood control, of navigation, of irrigation, of scientific research or national defense. It will at times necessarily produce power or commodities as a by-product.
Nor do I wish to be misinterpreted as believing that the United States is a free-for-all and devil-take-the-hindmost. The very essence of equality of opportunity and of American individualism is that there shall be no domination by any group or [monopoly] in this republic. It is no system of laissez faire.
I have witnessed not only at home but abroad the many failures of government in business. I have seen its tyrannies, its injustices, its destructions of self-government, its undermining of the very instincts which carry our people forward to progress. I have witnessed the lack of advance, the lowered standards of living, the depressed spirits of people working under such a system.
And what has been the result of the American system? Our country has become the land of opportunity to those born without inheritance, not merely because of the wealth of its resources and industry but because of this freedom of initiative and enterprise. Russia has natural resources equal to ours. But she has not had the blessings of one hundred and fifty years of our form of government and our social system.
By adherence to the principles of decentralized self-government, ordered liberty, equal opportunity, and freedom to the individual, our American experiment in human welfare has yielded a degree of well-being unparalleled in the world. It has come nearer to the abolition of poverty, to the abolition of fear of want, than humanity has ever reached before. Progress of the past seven years is proof of it.
The greatness of America has grown out of a political and social system and a method of [a lack of governmental] control of economic forces distinctly its own our American system which has carried this great experiment in human welfare farther than ever before in history. And I again repeat that the departure from our American system. Will jeopardize the very liberty and freedom of our people, and will destroy equality of opportunity not only to ourselves, but to our children.
The link you provides leads to a National Institue of Heath survey--most of which are done as telephone intervews. People without listed telephone numbers do not participate. The definition of "health insurance" includes all forms of accident insurance.Miami Bob,
I believe you may have mis-read the report. I couldn't find any reference to "auto insurance" anywhere in the text, although this note was included at the bottom of every table in the report:
A person was defined as uninsured if he or she did not have any private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) state-sponsored or other government-sponsored health plan, or military plan at the time of the interview. A person was also defined as uninsured if he or she had only Indian Health Service coverage or had only a private plan that paid for one type of service such as accidents or dental care.
Most people that have health insurance are happy with it because only a small percentage of people are getting screwed over by their insurance company or employer at any point in time.
It would be hard to deny the existence of two serious problems:
1. Per capita health care costs are increasing faster than we can pay for them as a society.
2. Many people don't have access to affordable insurance plans.
We can continue to ignore the problems or we can try and solve them. Pick a side and argue it but don't try to pretend the problems don't exist.
Accident insurance includes what you credit card provides when you buy a ticket with the credit card and motor vehicle insurance is for accidents and almost all staes in the usa require PIP which is health coverage for injuries resulting from any accident involving your motor vehicle and possibly any accident invioling you as a passenger in another person's vehicle or a pedestrian hit by a motor vehcle. This is the definition in the small print.
Your position may fit into your world view in a nice package--the market is a gift from god which puts everything right. Talk to people who need their health insurance or have to pay for it in the usa and you will hear a different story.
I'm shure that you will call me a socialist--I am in a sense. Just like richard nixon was a socialist in a sense when he fostered medicare and regan was for not fighting against medicare. And you will be when you accept medicare benefits, if you accept them. If you think social security and medicare are morally wrong--refuse the benfits.
We live in a social democracy as does western europe and most of the first world. The usa is the odd man out, not everybody else. There are some socialist elements in our society and almost all first world societies.
They're going hard. Looks like it's going to pass. All you buckslaps in Argentina forced to return to the USA because it's all good.
I thought they said it would pass but maybe it won't pass or a co op. They're talking about the Obama assasination a lot on Drudge Report. He posts articles on it all the time. Send some cash to the DNC to keep Obama going.
I just sent a copy of this fishy post to flag@whitehouse.gov. I think it's important for the government to keep track of such things and the people who would say them.
TEN FACTS EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS' TRILLION-DOLLAR "STIMULUS" ON ITS SIX-MONTH ANNIVERSARY.
Sick Sid
Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man.Obama is taking lessons from his friend Hugo Chavez - unleashing the "union" thugs on opposition. Not just in Montana but all over the country. SEIU goons badly beat a man at a town hall in Missouri when the man dared have an opinion different than that allowed by Disciples of Our Savior.
This is, of course, "The Change We Were Waiting For!"
So now O is a good friend of hugo chavez?
What happen to the people who brought fire arms to the town meetings[strongly anti o+ mouthing obvious misinformation propagated by ms palin]
Hate o--that's your right, but you are too intelligent to spread misinformation. Were you joking about o being a good friend of chavez or employing hyperbole to make a point of some sort?
Jackson thank you for taking the time to list several ideas / solutions Republicans have put forward on the health care debate.
Neither side has done a great job of getting their ideas out there in the media for intelligent discussion. You would think FOX would do so for the Republican ideas, and probably they have, but almost every time I check in on them they are doing some story slanted on making the Obama administration look bad. Medical tort reform and reducing "defensive medicine" is a particularly good and powerful idea which I hope will end up in the legislation that eventually gets passed.
I have to disagree with you on a "philosophical" point, namely, that if most people have insurance and are happy with it, then health care reform should not be an important issue. There are plenty of reasons it should be, but chief among them to me is medical bankruptcy. Of course if you lose your job / employer insurance and require expensive medical treatment, you are SOL. But studies have shown that many people who file for medical bankruptcy also had insurance. High deductibles, co-pays and exclusions were cited as some of the reasons why health insurance policies offer little protection during a serious illness. Illness and medical bills are a major cause of personal bankruptcies in the US.
I don't think people should suffer financial ruin because they got sick.
You would think FOX would do so for the Republican ideas, and probably they have, but almost every time I check in on them they are doing some story slanted on making the Obama administration look bad.Esten,
Consider watching Neil Cavuto at 5 pm (4 pm EST). He's a rather moderate and straight-forward guy.
Also the first 30 minutes of the O'Relliy Factor at 9 pm (8 pm EST).
Don't watch Glen Beck 6 pm (5 pm EST) He can be interesting, but he's often unnecessarily animated.
And for god's sake, don't watch Hannity 10 pm (9 pm EST) He's the #1 reason why Fox incorrectly suffers from a reputation as being overtly right wing.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson,
Being european, and therefore a liberal, at least, it always makes me smile when you say Fox News isn't right wing. Its good to get a take on the other side so I watch Fox occasionally, but the only guy I can stomach is Shepherd Smith; best quote, "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are America! We do not fucking torture!". Did he really get away with that on Fox? I'll check out Neil Cavuto.
Thanks for the link.
Dear Mr. President, Senate and House of Representatives:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family (18-20 mouths) into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U. S. Into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services iI might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All Mexico government forms need to also be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy eccess to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U. S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say a critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who come to the U. S. From Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help.PS: Also, please tell President Calderon that if he gives me citizenship he can safely assume that I will blindly vote for his party in every election.
Dear Mr. President, Senate and House of Representatives:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family (18-20 mouths) into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U. S. Into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services iI might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All Mexico government forms need to also be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy eccess to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U. S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say a critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who come to the U. S. From Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help.You forgot your coffee and pistachio ice cream. LOL
This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes. I met President Kennedy on his last visit to Boston before he was killed. I was at a very impressionable age and, not surprisingly, that memorable event set my career focus to working in ways to fulfill the Kennedy brand of liberalism.
I was devastated by the President's death, but saw his brother Bobby, as the leader who could go beyond JFK's cerebral ways and bring passion and real compassion into US politics. Bobby's appeal to both blacks and whites held great promise. And then came the Los Angeles hotel kitchen. The summer of 68, I virtually hibernated in my bedroom - listening to a new brand of rock & roll (The Band, Crosby, Stills & Nash, etc. While my broken heart mended.
In the late 60s, I dodged the Vietnam War draft, studied political science and hoped that Teddy would emerge from his own hibernation and pick up the torch so I could follow him. Chappaquiddick intervened.
Senator George McGovern's anti-war Presidential campaign was my entree into serious politics. And from 1972 through 1989, I worked in government for a variety of senior American national political leaders trying to end racism, poverty and war. We all know how that worked out!
After I left public service, I lost my taste for the business and despaired for the cause, as I saw an emerging US where everyone seemed to embrace a brutish selfishness and a mindless pursuit of lucre. Clinton was a marginal Democrat in my eyes. The theft of the Presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the W / Cheney / Rove years were dispiriting enough to bring me here to Argentina.
When Obama came along my hopes were renewed and the dream rekindled. I never assumed that single-handedly, he would overturn the forces of greed and evil, but I was, perhaps, too optimistic about how much "change" we could "believe in" would be tolerated by the powers that be.
Over the years, I had several personal encounters with Teddy. Once I brushed the stardust from my eyes, I saw a regular guy whose intelligence, charm and wit were ever present. Teddy's passing is a sad reminder of how the idealism that fueled my youth is so out of place today. It is a perverse blessing that he will not live to see the possible failure of his new champion, President Obama, not for want of trying and talent, but because the current creed of indignant indifference to others, so permeates US culture and the ruling class.
The depth of latent racism, especially among older white Americans who harbor deep fears that a multicultural America somehow holds a threat to them, is disheartening. That racism is just one of the many seemingly impossible obstacles that Obama faces, as he navigates an era of government distrust, broken political systems and a poisonous American media that no longer functions as a channel of civic education or objective watchdog.
As we age, our understanding of history does give us some perspective. In my lifetime there have been 13 presidents. Only one - FDR - was a success. JFK had too little time for a fair and full judgment on his tenure to be made. Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton - were mediocrities. Seven were outright political failures - Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bushes One and Two. What does that track record say about the efficacy of American democracy? The fact that during those years, the US became the dominant global power may say more about the genius of America's scientific and business management and the weakness of other powers than America's political leadership.
I fear that the best days of the US are behind it, unless change occurs that seems very unlikely. That the forces that wrecked the global financial economy will emerge still in the driver's seat appalls me. I now live in a country that once had great promise and squandered it through decades of bad leadership, military dominance and dysfunctional politics. It is not impossible that fifty years from now that will describe the US.
Still, for me, the dream isn't dead. Dreams never die. They recede and reappear in the mist of sleep. Even today some will see things as they are and say why and others will see things as they should be and say why not.
My dream is that the youth of the US will wake up some morning and recognize they are being left behind, as China and other nations push the US aside. They will decide that unless they change things, their future will be a diminished one. Maybe then they will do what the New Dealers did and create the "newer world" that the Kennedy brothers tried to inspire.
My own way of following Teddy's legacy will be to emulate his personal approach, rather than the political. Like him I will cherish all children, keep my friends close, harbor few resentments, be kind to all who cross my path and laugh and sing Irish songs as often as possible.
This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes. I met President Kennedy on his last visit to Boston before he was killed. I was at a very impressionable age and, not surprisingly, that memorable event set my career focus to working in ways to fulfill the Kennedy brand of liberalism.
I was devastated by the President's death, but saw his brother Bobby, as the leader who could go beyond JFK's cerebral ways and bring passion and real compassion into US politics. Bobby's appeal to both blacks and whites held great promise. And then came the Los Angeles hotel kitchen. The summer of 68, I virtually hibernated in my bedroom - listening to a new brand of rock & roll (The Band, Crosby, Stills & Nash, etc. While my broken heart mended.
In the late 60s, I dodged the Vietnam War draft, studied political science and hoped that Teddy would emerge from his own hibernation and pick up the torch so I could follow him. Chappaquiddick intervened.
Senator George McGovern's anti-war Presidential campaign was my entree into serious politics. And from 1972 through 1989, I worked in government for a variety of senior American national political leaders trying to end racism, poverty and war. We all know how that worked out!
After I left public service, I lost my taste for the business and despaired for the cause, as I saw an emerging US where everyone seemed to embrace a brutish selfishness and a mindless pursuit of lucre. Clinton was a marginal Democrat in my eyes. The theft of the Presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the W / Cheney / Rove years were dispiriting enough to bring me here to Argentina.
When Obama came along my hopes were renewed and the dream rekindled. I never assumed that single-handedly, he would overturn the forces of greed and evil, but I was, perhaps, too optimistic about how much "change" we could "believe in" would be tolerated by the powers that be.
Over the years, I had several personal encounters with Teddy. Once I brushed the stardust from my eyes, I saw a regular guy whose intelligence, charm and wit were ever present. Teddy's passing is a sad reminder of how the idealism that fueled my youth is so out of place today. It is a perverse blessing that he will not live to see the possible failure of his new champion, President Obama, not for want of trying and talent, but because the current creed of indignant indifference to others, so permeates US culture and the ruling class.
The depth of latent racism, especially among older white Americans who harbor deep fears that a multicultural America somehow holds a threat to them, is disheartening. That racism is just one of the many seemingly impossible obstacles that Obama faces, as he navigates an era of government distrust, broken political systems and a poisonous American media that no longer functions as a channel of civic education or objective watchdog.
As we age, our understanding of history does give us some perspective. In my lifetime there have been 13 presidents. Only one - FDR - was a success. JFK had too little time for a fair and full judgment on his tenure to be made. Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton - were mediocrities. Seven were outright political failures - Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bushes One and Two. What does that track record say about the efficacy of American democracy? The fact that during those years, the US became the dominant global power may say more about the genius of America's scientific and business management and the weakness of other powers than America's political leadership.
I fear that the best days of the US are behind it, unless change occurs that seems very unlikely. That the forces that wrecked the global financial economy will emerge still in the driver's seat appalls me. I now live in a country that once had great promise and squandered it through decades of bad leadership, military dominance and dysfunctional politics. It is not impossible that fifty years from now that will describe the US.
Still, for me, the dream isn't dead. Dreams never die. They recede and reappear in the mist of sleep. Even today some will see things as they are and say why and others will see things as they should be and say why not.
My dream is that the youth of the US will wake up some morning and recognize they are being left behind, as China and other nations push the US aside. They will decide that unless they change things, their future will be a diminished one. Maybe then they will do what the New Dealers did and create the "newer world" that the Kennedy brothers tried to inspire.
My own way of following Teddy's legacy will be to emulate his personal approach, rather than the political. Like him I will cherish all children, keep my friends close, harbor few resentments, be kind to all who cross my path and laugh and sing Irish songs as often as possible.A real rusted-on Democrat. Well let's see how well the Obama can dig America out of the deep pile of doo-doo that Democrat policies initiated, save the world and make all these born-again Democrats realise that he is the messiah. Fat chance. My guess he will be like Ted Kennedy; when he was really needed, he left a young woman to drown and only admitted culpability 9 hours later. I don't think America needs that sort of role model. And Obama talks sweet but my guess he's just a cock-teaser; lots of promises but no fucky-fucky.
Argento
I don't know who wrote this but it was obviously written by a retard.
It is pretty good summary of what all of us go through when we are young, impressionable and without life experiences.
By and large, if you aren't a liberal when you are 20 years old you don't have a heart.
If you are still a liberal when you a 30 years old you don't have a brain.
This person obviously was born without a brain.
This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes. I met President Kennedy on his last visit to Boston before he was killed. I was at a very impressionable age and, not surprisingly, that memorable event set my career focus to working in ways to fulfill the Kennedy brand of liberalism.
I was devastated by the President's death, but saw his brother Bobby, as the leader who could go beyond JFK's cerebral ways and bring passion and real compassion into US politics. Bobby's appeal to both blacks and whites held great promise. And then came the Los Angeles hotel kitchen. The summer of 68, I virtually hibernated in my bedroom - listening to a new brand of rock & roll (The Band, Crosby, Stills & Nash, etc. While my broken heart mended.
In the late 60s, I dodged the Vietnam War draft, studied political science and hoped that Teddy would emerge from his own hibernation and pick up the torch so I could follow him. Chappaquiddick intervened.
Senator George McGovern's anti-war Presidential campaign was my entree into serious politics. And from 1972 through 1989, I worked in government for a variety of senior American national political leaders trying to end racism, poverty and war. We all know how that worked out!
After I left public service, I lost my taste for the business and despaired for the cause, as I saw an emerging US where everyone seemed to embrace a brutish selfishness and a mindless pursuit of lucre. Clinton was a marginal Democrat in my eyes. The theft of the Presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the W / Cheney / Rove years were dispiriting enough to bring me here to Argentina.
When Obama came along my hopes were renewed and the dream rekindled. I never assumed that single-handedly, he would overturn the forces of greed and evil, but I was, perhaps, too optimistic about how much "change" we could "believe in" would be tolerated by the powers that be.
Over the years, I had several personal encounters with Teddy. Once I brushed the stardust from my eyes, I saw a regular guy whose intelligence, charm and wit were ever present. Teddy's passing is a sad reminder of how the idealism that fueled my youth is so out of place today. It is a perverse blessing that he will not live to see the possible failure of his new champion, President Obama, not for want of trying and talent, but because the current creed of indignant indifference to others, so permeates US culture and the ruling class.
The depth of latent racism, especially among older white Americans who harbor deep fears that a multicultural America somehow holds a threat to them, is disheartening. That racism is just one of the many seemingly impossible obstacles that Obama faces, as he navigates an era of government distrust, broken political systems and a poisonous American media that no longer functions as a channel of civic education or objective watchdog.
As we age, our understanding of history does give us some perspective. In my lifetime there have been 13 presidents. Only one - FDR - was a success. JFK had too little time for a fair and full judgment on his tenure to be made. Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton - were mediocrities. Seven were outright political failures - Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bushes One and Two. What does that track record say about the efficacy of American democracy? The fact that during those years, the US became the dominant global power may say more about the genius of America's scientific and business management and the weakness of other powers than America's political leadership.
I fear that the best days of the US are behind it, unless change occurs that seems very unlikely. That the forces that wrecked the global financial economy will emerge still in the driver's seat appalls me. I now live in a country that once had great promise and squandered it through decades of bad leadership, military dominance and dysfunctional politics. It is not impossible that fifty years from now that will describe the US.
Still, for me, the dream isn't dead. Dreams never die. They recede and reappear in the mist of sleep. Even today some will see things as they are and say why and others will see things as they should be and say why not.
My dream is that the youth of the US will wake up some morning and recognize they are being left behind, as China and other nations push the US aside. They will decide that unless they change things, their future will be a diminished one. Maybe then they will do what the New Dealers did and create the "newer world" that the Kennedy brothers tried to inspire.
My own way of following Teddy's legacy will be to emulate his personal approach, rather than the political. Like him I will cherish all children, keep my friends close, harbor few resentments, be kind to all who cross my path and laugh and sing Irish songs as often as possible.
This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes.Hi Ricardo,
Well written, but I have to ask: Are you the original author, or did you copy this from the Daily KOS?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/28/773808/-A-Personal-Remembrance-of-Ted-from-A-US-Expat
Inquiring minds want to know.
Furthering the discussion:
The theft of the Presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the W / Cheney / Rove years were dispiriting enough to bring me here to Argentina.You came to the right country, because Argentina is a perfect example of what the USA will look like in 20 years if the liberals and their Messiah have their way.
... one of the many seemingly impossible obstacles that Obama faces, as he navigates an era of government distrust, broken political systems and a poisonous American media that no longer functions as a channel of civic education or objective watchdog.Are you serious? Where do you get this stuff? With absolute certainty throughout the election and into his presidency, the media has been in love with the Messiah.
The fact that during those years, the US became the dominant global power may say more about the genius of America's scientific and business management and the weakness of other powers than America's political leadership.Which is exactly why government should not run the country's health care system.
I fear that the best days of the US are behind it.Why do liberals always have such a depressing "Doom and Gloom" outlook on life? Oh, I forgot, it's because they have an ongoing need to frighten their constituency.
Thanks,
Jackson
"I fear that the best days of the USA are behind us."
Jackson,
I heard this same bullshit when that "shit for brains" idiot Carter was President.
However, if you were in office thanks to the votes of a 100 million liberals, you would probably think that it was time to throw in the towel. The people who voted you into office (the unemployed, those who refuse to work and the give me my welfare check crowd) are not people with big ideas, big plans and big dreams.
To the contrary, they are fucking liberals (leaches) who think they should have the same life style as those who actually got off their butts, took chances and made something of their lifes.
Wild Walleye
08-31-09, 01:02
First off, I feel for anyone who loses a loved one, whether I liked the man or not. That said, the BS and revisionist history gushing out of the media about Ted Kennedy is appalling.
This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes. What does that say about liberals taking false gods (Kennedys, the environment, Obama)? It says that there is a large population of people with mush for brains that will worship people who are unworthy of note for personal character but produce much fodder for the likes of People Magazine.
My own way of following Teddy's legacy will be to emulate his personal approach, rather than the political. Like him I will cherish all children, keep my friends close, harbor few resentments, be kind to all who cross my path and laugh and sing Irish songs as often as possible.His political legacy is that of a powerful, bitter partisan (I. E. He was a successful politician) It is a blood sport, he played to win and often times he did win.
Teddy's legacy as a man, for those who wish to look beyond partisan politics, is that of a degenerate who if it were not for his last name never would have been in the Senate nor would he have evaded jail time for manslaughter, rape and sexual harassment. As far as I can tell, the last time (until this past week) that he was ever held accountable for his actions was when Harvard threw him out for cheating (and it wasn't the first time he was caught). Unless Teddy set things right with God prior to departure, it sure is hot where he is right now.
I am not casting stones, I am calling it like I see it. I like everyone have my own failings for which I will be held accountable. However, to date, I have never sex with an unwilling partner nor have my actions directly caused the death of anyone.
I just about pissed myself reading the previous posts! Keep the belly laughs coming! If it wasn't for the wild asses liberals on this board I'd be so bored I'd be bitching about remi costs from the airport. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
P. Well done fellas
Jackson - I first posted my comments on Kos and then here. The reactions to it were somewhat different as you would imagine.
Alamo - At least you serve a good American hamburger. I'll leave it at that.
Sidney - Yup! I am a liberal. Not ashamed at all about it. Think the US has seen its best days. Think the global crash pretty much sums up the validity of the Friedman / Greenspan laissez-faire, free market, invisible hand of self correcting markets, neo-liberal, neocon economic theory hog wash that became secular religion over the past thirty years and like all religions left havoc in its wake.
And, unlike your fellow commentators, I see no reason to hurl personal insults at people whose views differ from mine. Those people define themselves with their statements.
I do wonder the extent to which some of my (and Ted's) critics have ever made any effort to do anything for anyone other than themselves? Just wondering.
And finally, for the self-proclaimed mongerers among us, (and maybe it's my Catholic upbringing) I wonder how many who attack Teddy's morals ever look in the mirror and question their own - as they search for cheap pussy, complain about its rising cost, mindlessly exploiting the Argentine chicas, most of whom hate what they are doing and who they do it with, but need the money to feed their kids.
Now I bet that statement won't go down to well here!
Ricardo,
Your thesis or whatever you want to call it was very well written. You have a knack with words. I thought it was lifted from some national newspaper or magazine.
Wild Walleye
08-31-09, 17:56
I do wonder the extent to which some of my (and Ted's) critics have ever made any effort to do anything for anyone other than themselves? Just wondering.If you mean creating jobs, practicing kindness to other (the real kind where you actually do something rather than spout greeting card slogans) caring for the environment (again in real life not bumper sticker liberalism) paying taxes and not killing women who work for me, yes, I have made an effort.
And finally, for the self-proclaimed mongerers among us, (and maybe it's my Catholic upbringing) I wonder how many who attack Teddy's morals ever look in the mirror and question their ownCan you read or do you only write?
exploiting the Argentine chicas, most of whom hate what they are doing and who they do it with, but need the money to feed their kids.Who is being exploited? The gringos who are diverting money that could be better spent feeding their own children or the Argentine temptresses who know we can not resist their charms?
Now I bet that statement won't go down to well here!Goes down fine, like one of Exon's girls from Checker's Pub. You see the difference here is that most of the mongering folks here welcome the opinions of others and the opportunity to debate -- based on the merits and not feel-good platitudes backed up by fluff and bull shit.
Great to know that Jackson's AP ranks #2 to the Daily Kooks. Way to go Jackson, you must have at least 3 people following your site (since Daily Kooks had 4, at last count)
Walleye. I stand by my comments as well. But my Jesuit training in logic stands in the way of me buying your rebuttal.
I am afraid that your concept of exploitation would be considered quite novel by most formally trained ethicists. And then, your snipe about the breadth or depth of my reading versus the quality of my writing is pretty lame.
I readily accept that you may have made many worthy contributions to the betterment of mankind. But let's not infer that your's are more legitimate, worthy or bigger than mine or Teddy's or my numerous liberal counterparts. Whose is bigger? You know where that leads.
If you will forgive the lesson in logic, some one who claims to "welcome the opinion of others" and "the opportunity to debate" would eschew the ad homonym insults you retreat behind. Words like "feel-good platitudes, fluff and bullshit" are legitimate only in the eye of the beholder and lack sufficient rigor to carry the day in a serious debate.
Now if you want to debate history, culture, economics, global trends, liberalism, conservatism, etc. Using facts, logic and learning that is my idea of a useful exercise.
Too bad those type of debates are hardly ever engaged in these days, either on the US media or global blogs - including Argentine Private - where slogan throwing is the preference.
Hey did you hear about the Kirchner death panels?
Wild Walleye
08-31-09, 20:56
Walleye. I stand by my comments as well. But my Jesuit training in logic stands in the way of me buying your rebuttal.
I am afraid that your concept of exploitation would be considered quite novel by most formally trained ethicists.Forgive me Brother O'Malley, I'm no Opus Dei but I've been around the church a bit too.
I am afraid that your fine Jesuit instructors skipped over humor and sarcasm and a host of other literary devices, whilst diligently drilling you on crafting earnest hyperbole.
And then, your snipe about the breadth or depth of my reading versus the quality of my writing is pretty lame.Thank you for confirming my suspicion and once again not reading the written word.
A snipe is a bird, my comment was a quip. It was not about your breadth or depth of the immeasurable cornucopia of material that I am sure you have read, it was about you not reading what I had written. Specifically, I made a biblical (I was counting on that as being part of your cornucopia, mentioned above) reference about not casting the first stone because I too am a sinner.
I ask you, why, why should we write at all if no one cares to read what is written? For the artistry, the beauty and of course for the grace of God (after all, were it not for this last notion, we would have all been cheated out of the beauty that accompanied the beast of the Italian Renaissance)
I readily accept that you may have made many worthy contributions to the betterment of mankind.Don't readily accept anything. I might surprise you.
But let's not infer that your's are more legitimate, worthy or bigger than mine or Teddy's or my numerous liberal counterparts. I didn't. You assumed that I did based on: 1) your spotty attention to detail in the fine art of reading comprehension, or 2) your preconceived notions of how I think / act / speak, or 3) you lack of true conviction in your political beliefs because they are based on warm feelings, slogans and the influence of the opinions of others rather than on a concrete understanding through living it.
Whose is bigger? You know where that leads.I don't know where that leads. I've never been one to compare myself to others.
If you will forgive the lesson in logic, some one who claims to "welcome the opinion of others" and "the opportunity to debate" would eschew the ad homonym [sic] insults you retreat behind. Words like "feel-good platitudes, fluff and bullshit" are legitimate only in the eye of the beholder and lack sufficient rigor [sic] to carry the day in a serious debate.My inference is valid, my reasoning correct.
I was trying to be nice with my ad hominem comments. How am I hiding behind them? My language may be colorful, however, my rigour is just fine, as is my principled position.
Now if you want to debate history, culture, economics, global trends, liberalism, conservatism, etc. Using facts, logic and learning that is my idea of a useful exercise. I would be intimidated by such interaction with an individual who clearly has a vastly superior intellect than I.
Too bad those type of debates are hardly ever engaged in these days,It's always in the last place you look.
either on the US media or global blogs - including Argentine Private - where slogan throwing is the preference. Please reference the bird about your reading comprehension, above.
Hey did you hear about the Kirchner death panels?No, is the Argentine senate going to remove that nonexistent facet from their legislation too? What a minute, how can you remove something that doesn't exist? I'm so confused!
Verb. To attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. Anonymously or from a safe distance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snipe
Seems like a fairly apt characterization of your comments WW.
This Presidency is getting to the goods. Prostitution is on the way sooner rather than later, I can say that. I can't see how they're not about getting Israel wiped off the map. Argentina legalized drugs. Maybe it is a good time feel the vibes in Chicago, the only tolerable place of visit in the USA.
Wild Walleye
09-01-09, 23:50
Verb. To attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. Anonymously or from a safe distance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snipe
Seems like a fairly apt characterization of your comments WW.Very apt indeed, however, I was trying to be funny with the bird allusion (which I thought I wove into the end quite well)
I suspect that the reason you viewed my criticism as snide and petulant, had something to do with the fact that is how I intended it to be.
WW, I commend your honesty as you admit your intention to be "snide" and "petulant" in your response to my heartfelt comments on the passing of Ted Kennedy.
Of course your prior post suggested you were just trying to be "sarcastic" and "humorous" using "quips" and "colorful" words. Hmmmm. Oh well.
Let me end this little colloquy with an ancient Gaelic blessing for you (tailored for the current circumstance):
"May the sun shine warm upon your face;
The rains fall soft upon your fields;
May the road rise up to meet you.
And may the wind be always at your back."
Rather than coming out your ass! (emphasis added)
Punter 127
09-02-09, 04:34
Whirlpool Corp. Announced Friday it will close its Evansville, Ind. Factory next year, moving the plant's production of top-freezer refrigerators to a facility in Mexico.
Citing the need to trim manufacturing capacity, Whirlpool said the mid-2010 plant closure will eliminate 1,100 full-time jobs.
Whirlpool (WHR) like most manufacturers, has seen its sales slump over the past year as a global economic recession and housing market slump hurt demand for home appliances. Whirlpool's latest revenue numbers show sales in the second quarter fell 18% to $4.17 billion from the second quarter of 2008. Thank you so much Mr. President for letting these jobs go to Mexico. Why didn t we have some cash for clunker freezers?
I just about pissed myself reading the previous posts! Keep the belly laughs coming! If it wasn't for the wild asses liberals on this board I'd be so bored I'd be bitching about remi costs from the airport. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
P. Well done fellasNOSTALGIA, THE AMERICAN ELIXIR.
I'm with you, but it's the John Wayne crowd that are most entertaining.
Their "either you are a cowboy, or you're not" reflects their nostalgia for the good old days. Their need to insult and belittle people when claiming to be debating is pure arrogance. By the way, I'm conservative and do not have common grounds with the liberals.
Wild Walleye
09-02-09, 14:20
Thank you so much Mr. President for letting these jobs go to Mexico. Why didn 't we have some cash for clunker freezers?Cash for clunkers was a give-away to spike car sales and help out Obama Motors / UAW.
Forget what the main stream media says, the actual number of Americans who CANNOT get insurance is approximately 12 million people. That number is derived from the census bureau and excludes: I) illegal aliens, ii) those making more than $75k / year, iii) those who qualify for public assistance but do not take advantage of it, and iv) those who temporarily lose insurance (averaging 4 months or less) but are not chronically uninsured.
If that program was "cash for Health Insurance" it could have paid for private health insurance (of the same quality that I have for myself and family) for 1.25 million people (10.42% of those who CANNOT get health insurance) for a period of four months.
Alas, doing that would not qualify as payback owed to the UAW by BHO and Ried and Pelosi.
Ricardo, again, you have no sense of humor (a condition that plagues the left) and you have an alternative understanding of literary devices than the one I possess.
WW, I commend your honesty as you admit your intention to be "snide" and "petulant" in your response to my heartfelt comments on the passing of Ted Kennedy.
Of course your prior post suggested you were just trying to be "sarcastic" and "humorous" using "quips" and "colorful" words. Hmmmm. Oh well.What makes you say "hmmmm" (did you have your hands on your hips when you typed that? Shit, now I feel like I have to clean the garage instead of playing golf and drinking beer with my friends.
How is being humorous through the use of sarcasm and quips, delivered in a snide and petulant manner, inconsistent? Why do you put quotation marks around these words? Did I misused them somehow or bastardize their meanings?
WW,
The main stream media use of the 47+ million Americans who are currently uninsured may be worthy of criticism. But your claim that the actual number of Americans who CANNOT get insurance is approximately 12 million people is demonstrably false. Your number is derived from an easily refuted misrepresentation of the 2007 Census Bureau telephone survey estimates that has been floating around the web for a few years. I will now detail the flaws of the so-called analysis.
The Census Bureau report issued in 2007 numbers are legitimately subject to interpretation. The 47 million figure is inclusive and is not a definitive measure of the number of American's whose health is at risk because they do not have access to affordable coverage.
I assume you recognize that the thrust of the national effort to reform the US health insurance system led by President Obama and supported by many business, labor and consumer interest groups, focuses on, not one, but, three key issues - the portion of Americans without any coverage; the practice of the insurance firms to deny coverage to classes of citizens and / or arbitrarily drop clients and refuse to pay for covered procedures; and the skyrocketing costs of coverage that threaten both businesses who share the burden of covering their employees and all insured Americans who are forced to spend a greater share of their income on premiums.
Whether the number of uninsured is 47, 37, 27 or 7 million people, that is only part of the problem, the fact that the current system is unsustainable is what must concern everyone whether or not they have coverage. There should be little debate on whether the current system is broken or whether it can be sustained over time without a major overhaul. You don't address that key concern, but rather provide debatable interpretations of the 2007 Census data.
First, the 2007 numbers are out-of-date, as they do not reflect the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the current crisis and their family members.
Second, the length of time that it now takes for newly unemployed to find work is far longer that the four month average of 2007 due to the current recession and many replacement jobs are part-time and / or do not offer health care. There is little doubt that the US employment picture will remain dim for a long time.
Third, the 2007 Census data counts 9.487 million people who are "not a citizen." Those numbers include both legal and illegal aliens. Legal "non-citizen" residents work, pay taxes and contribute to the general welfare of the nation just like all other citizens. They have contributed a fair proportion of US troops in The Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Many are in the process of filing for full citizenship. Any of their children born on US soil are full citizens. Their legal status entitles them to the same treatment as full citizens.
The Census data on insurance does not break down the proportions of the uninsured "non-citizens" that are legal versus illegal aliens. Opponents of health care reform lump them together so as to state that the number of uninsured "Americans" is only 37 million. They argue somehow all 10 million uninsured "non-citizens," including legal aliens, should be ignored in the healthcare debate. That argument - to be generous - is anti-immigrant jingoism designed to delegitimize the call for health insurance reform.
Fourth, who can or cannot "afford" health insurance is not easily calculated, as it would be a function of both the ability to pay and the cost of the coverage. So arbitrary numbers used by either side on the health care "affordability" debate are not true and reliable measures of the extent of the difficulty Americans have in meeting their health care needs.
The 2007 Census report, estimates 8.3 million uninsured people made between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million made more than $75,000 a year. The opponents of health care reform extrapolate from those figures that the 17 million people in those categories ought to be able to "afford" health insurance, because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326. That is a point of view, not a statement of fact.
Average family health insurance premiums have risen from $5,791 in 1999 to $12,680 in 2008 and are expected to possibly double by 2020. Wages which have been stagnant through most of the Bush years are unlikely to double by 2020. So the future "affordability" of health insurance is a serious issue for every income group, as is the current status for even the fairly well-off middle class.
Maybe every family with an annual income of $50+k can now "afford" to pay up to 25% of that income on health care premiums for policies that have high deductibles and co-payments, as well as exclusions on covered procedures. Maybe many can't - depending on a variety of factors from regional costs of living, tax burdens, number of children, etc. As factored against their specific insurance costs.
If wages remain stagnant and insurance costs double as projected, a family with an income of $50k could face annual insurance costs of up to 50% of their earnings. Would anyone claim with a straight face those middle-class Americans could still "afford" health insurance.
WW - do you think, perhaps, the insurance, pharmaceutical and related health industry firms whose profit margins far exceed most general industry averages could "afford" to lower the prices they charge? Or would that be a mortal capitalist sin?
Do you think it is a good idea, as the health care reform bills move through Congress, to include the insurance industry-supported version that would guarantee a 35% profit margin? Interesting idea - have the federal government guarantee industry profit margins while refusing to guarantee health care for its citizens!
Is it possible that excessive rewards issued in malpractice law suits are similar to excess industry profits? Or is it just wrong when trial lawyers try to make a buck?
WW - I am afraid your ideology, disdain for those you disagree with, reliance on biased sources to support your preconceived notions and tendency to shoot from the hip won't get you a gig as the Argentine Rush Limbaugh, but if Faux News needs a local correspondent you could be their go-to guy. I will provide a reference if they call!
(By the way, your lame, little inference on my hands and hips could be construed as a anti-gay prejudice, but why would that surprise anyone?
Wild Walleye
09-02-09, 17:35
I will respond to your DNC talking points, if I can find the energy (need to see the DR about my chronic fatigue (brought on by unrepentant liberal gushiness for BHO)
(By the way, your lame, little inference on my hands and hips could be construed as a anti-gay prejudice, but why would that surprise anyone?You forgot to add that I am a racist because I oppose Obama, sexist because I oppose Nancy Pelosi and anti-Nevadan because I have great disdain for Harry Ried. I also am clearly anti-dead people because of my comments critical of Ted Kennedy and Walter Crommiekrite.
I was not insinuating that I thought you were gay (I doubt this forum draws too many gay mongers) I was saying that you sound like a bitchy, disapproving wife.
I am sure that it would surprise you to learn that I am neither a homophobe nor anti-gay (particularly when it comes to lipstick lesbians)
No, you're just not very funny.
You and your ilk misrepresent facts, hurl inane insults alongside lame derivatives of the President's name, and have shown an absolute inability to even begin to debate the issues.
Ricardo has been beyond patient and understanding while trying to educate you a little. I'm sad to say it looks like a wasted effort.
I don't know what would qualify as the most pointless 1) the French and USA trying to dominate SE Asia 2) the USA and few allies going into Iraq 3) the USA and a few allies going into Afganistan.
There is not one chance in the world that we are going to have any better luck in governing or creating a government in Afganistan than Alexander the Great had. For Christ's sake, Afganistan is not even a country. Afganistan is a collection of tribes.
We can leave Afganistan now or leave Afganistan later but it is a given that we will leave Afganistan in the same shape that Alexander the Great left Afganistan, Ghengis Khan left Afganistan, Timberlane left Afganistan and Russia left Afganistan. Afganistan will always be a collection of ungovernable tribes.
Getting back to the question in the first paragraph. I vote for Iraq becuase Iraq had a successful secular government which, although not a democracy, was probably more western (womans rights etc) than any of its neighbors.
The hanging of Saddam Hussein was, in my opinion, one of the most disgraceful, disgusting and shameful acts in the history of the United States.
Now I have to put in the mandatory paragraph of Obama bashing. My question is, if Obama isn't going to get us out of Afganistan, who is (big clue, we are going to have our butts kicked out of Afganistan by tribal members who have not had one day of formal education, can't add 2 plus 2 and have no idea who Jackson is or how to log on to ArgentinaPrivate )
P.S. I forgot a tried and true option that has worked before in the United States as well as in Argentina. We could look upon the people of Afganistan the same way Indians were looked upon in the United States and Argentina i.e the only good Indian is a dead Indian.
Then we would have a vast expanse of territory that would need to be populated by guess who.
WW. For the record I neither need nor would rely on DNC talking points. As a former staffer for a US President, Senator and Governor, I do my own research, construct my own arguments and, as at least Alamo has observed, can handle the written word.
I regret to observe that despite my bestowing the old Irish blessing on you, it appears the wind is not at your back, but continues to emanate from a part of your anatomy in that general area.
I have no idea if you are a racist, anti-Nevadan, anti-dead. Antigay, pro or anti Elvis, a John, Paul, George or Ringo Beatle fan or a Keith Richards wannabe or wear a tin foil hat. Nor do I care. But if you found my critique of your post reminded you of a "bitchy, disapproving wife" - my feminist friends would find the sexist handle pretty apt.
Rather to try to refute my talking points, I would recommend you familiarize yourself with the views of Wendell Potter, the former CIGNA PR executive, on how the health insurance industry creates and disseminates its talking points. That might help you to get beyond the pre-packaged flotsam mixed in the backrooms of the insurance industry think tanks and pimped to their wholly-owned subsidiary - the Republican Party and to the False News show anchors.
Or maybe we just forget it all.
Bame Mata raises an obvious point about the futility of what Barney Frank - my old buddy - would term arguing with a dining room table!
Wild Walleye
09-03-09, 12:39
As a former staffer for a US President, Senator and Governor, I do my own research, construct my own arguments and, as at least Alamo has observed, can handle the written word.Err. Whatever. I used to be a day laborer in the construction trade and now live on the same street with a sitting senator and former governor and have two other former senators that I see socially on rare occasions. I learned more a bout life, America and the American Dream from my 'undereducated' construction bosses and coworkers than I could from the other four (2 dems, 2 reps) combined. When I worked in DC, I got a great view as to how the government became so far removed from the people. One reason is staffers. Not that the staffers themselves are bad, but the entire legislature (which had long ago abdicated its role of legislating on difficult issues to the judicial branch) is run by staffers. This is a far cry from the citizen legislature initiated and envisions by our founders. We should go back to a citizen legislature, eliminate the legislative class from our society and get back to basics. As part of that, we should demand that legislators derive their income from actual work in their home state and do their own work. Yes it can be done because we already have enough laws on the books, just do the budget and a few other things and go back to your home state and work.
I regret to observe that despite my bestowing the old Irish blessing on you, it appears the wind is not at your back, but continues to emanate from a part of your anatomy in that general area.
I have no idea if you are a racist, anti-Nevadan, anti-dead. Antigay, pro or anti Elvis, a John, Paul, George or Ringo Beatle fan or a Keith Richards wannabe or wear a tin foil hat. Nor do I care. But if you found my critique of your post reminded you of a "bitchy, disapproving wife" - my feminist friends would find the sexist handle pretty apt.Your feminist friends for the most part hate wives, especially those that need / depend on having a man in their lives, chose to have children and God forbid stay home with them.
Rather to try to refute my talking points, I would recommend you familiarize yourself with the views of Wendell Potter, the former CIGNA PR executive, on how the health insurance industry creates and disseminates its talking points. That might help you to get beyond the pre-packaged flotsam mixed in the backrooms of the insurance industry think tanks and pimped to their wholly-owned subsidiary - the Republican Party and to the False News show anchors.Nothing more trustworthy than a PR executive. You've sold me.
Or maybe we just forget it all.
Bame Mata raises an obvious point about the futility of what Barney Frank - my old buddy - would term arguing with a dining room table!Good idea. When did you set up Bame Mata as your alter ego? He popped up out of nowhere just in time to support you.
Barney Frank should be in jail.
WW,
The main stream media use of the 47+ million Americans who are currently uninsured may be worthy of criticism. But your claim that the actual number of Americans who CANNOT get insurance is approximately 12 million people is demonstrably false. Your number is derived from an easily refuted misrepresentation of the 2007 Census Bureau telephone survey estimates that has been floating around the web for a few years. I will now detail the flaws of the so-called analysis.Okay Ricardo, I'll bite.
Please tell us what is the approximate number of people who do not have have health insurance and...
1. Who are American Citizens, (please do not include criminal trespassers) and...
2. Who are between 18 and 65 (adults and seniors are already covered by government insurance) and...
3. Who make more than $75,000 a year (people making more than this can afford their own insurance) and...
4. Who are eligible for some sort of coverage but simply choose not to enroll in existing programs, and...
5. Who are between 18 and 24 and who do not want to pay anything for any coverage what-so-ever because they believe that they are invincible, and...
6. Who are not military veterans (they are already covered).
Thanks,
Jackson
Alamo --- you make some very valid points.
Remember James Madison (one of Walleye's revered Founding Fathers) wrote in 1795 - "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. Known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
I agree that the Iraq War represents the dumbest foreign policy decision in my lifetime, with Vietnam a distant second (except for the 50+k dead US troops, tens of thousands of physically and mentally damaged veterans and the millions of dead or damaged innocent Vietnamese)
The greatest irony of Vietnam to me is that the loss of that war occurred over seven years of the Nixon presidency and the admission of defeat came when President Ford ordered the US retreat from Saigon, yet antiwar Democrats have always carried the blame for the US defeat. Because they were right that the "domino theory" was about as valid as the "Saddam has WMDs" horse shit, they had to be discredited. Because the US military industrial / political complex and their bat boy Henry Kissinger was wrong, it had to seize and change the factual narrative which it did very effectively at the end of the 1970s and through the Reagan years.
The reality was papered over, that the Vietnam War could never have been "won" in any humanly acceptable definition of that term or any feasible commitment of US forces, even if we had followed US Air Force General LeMay's advice and bombed all of Vietnam back to the Stone Age. The unfair and inaccurate narrative that the Democrats wouldn't let the War be won became accepted wisdom by many. This is sadly understandable because Americans have a very, very hard time accepting that with the exception of the two World Wars, their country has very often been both wrong and ham-handed, as it throws its' weight around the world. And for three decades, most Democratic office holders have engaged in political posturing rather than speaking truth to power on defense matters to avoid the charge of being "soft on national security." Remember Hillary the Hawk against Obama the "wuss" in the late 2008 primaries?
Little wonder that the US is the world's biggest military spender, accounting for 48% , or almost half, of the world's total; more than the combined spending of the next 45 countries; 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and almost 55 times the spending on the six "rogue" states - Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
As for Iraq there are two primary points. First, the war that was supposed to bring a wave of democratic revolutions across the Middle East has only firmed the grip of the anti-democratic power holders in every Middle Eastern country. While the Shia-led rulers in Iraq are quite likely to move closer to Iran, once the US presence is gone. Second, Maliki who we installed in office shrewdly engineered a plan to kick us out of his country and the Bush Administration went along when it signed the Status of Forces agreement that requires the full US withdrawal by 2010. Obama is carrying out the agreement as written.
The Pentagon is willing to accept this outcome rather than stay stuck in an unpleasant and dangerous hellhole and thus will support Obama as he fulfills his campaign promise. Occasional up-ticks in violence may affect timetables, but not the eventual outcome. So three trillion US taxpayers dollars, over 4000 troop deaths and 30,000 wounded will be the cost of a nine year conflict that failed to fulfill any of its initial objectives.
Moving onto Afghanistan, I also agree that the effort has become a misadventure that can do serious damage to Obama and his ambition to rationalize US foreign and military policy, unless he plays the game more shrewdly than it appears on the surface at this early date in his presidency.
Obama inherited a festering wound. You might notice when Dick Cheney claims the Bush policies kept America safe, he never mentions Afghanistan, because like the Iraq misadventure, the Bush war objectives were never met. After seven years, the operative question is what should Obama do?
With lingering uncertainty about the amount of steel in the spine of Democrats, Obama as he completes the Iraq withdrawal - is effectively precluded from just pulling up stakes in Afghanistan. As noted above, Bin Laden remains at large, al Qaeda has not been completely defanged and the Taliban is resurgent. If he had began his Presidency by withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, nationwide impeachment rallies would make the health care town halls look like Episcopal prayer meetings.
Obama's rhetoric notwithstanding; he knows he stands no better chance of turning Afghanistan - "the graveyard of empires" - into Kansas than the Russians, Bush or Genghis Kahn. It is hard to imagine the Pentagon suckering him into a huge, long-term escalation of troop levels and of cave-to-cave combat in Afghanistan, no matter how much the Generals need a hot war somewhere to keep the threat of Islamic terror in the news and to justify big budgets.
There are recent signs of Obama's hesitancy. First is a leaked complaint from an un-named senior Pentagon source stating: "I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier. We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war." Second, is the Administration's latest decision not to increase the number of troops in the country. Rather, in order to execute the Pentagon's more aggressive approach on the ground, combat units will be sent to replace exiting non-combat units.
The most politically palatable exit strategy for Obama out of the Afghan box Bush left him will be to bow to the ground swell of antiwar popular opinion, the widespread calls for us to cut our losses, with conservatives ironically leading the "cut and run" charge. George Will is the first conservative out of the box. Next time he sees Obama he may get kissed!
The best bet is by the end of his first term, although it will take a lot of finesse, Obama will have maneuvered the US presence into a lower profile in Afghanistan. That may require proof that Osama is dead and news on that front can pop up any day. Drone planes may still be targeting al Qaeda bases. But there won't be 300,000 US and Nato troops on the ground, or even 100,000. The Pentagon won't make this easy. Still, Republicans will not be able to attack Obama for following both the will of the American people and much of their own intelligentsia.
Now let's not be naive, if Obama leaves both Iraq and Afghanistan, should a bomb go off in an empty parking lot and be attributed to al Qaeda, Republican calls for his impeachment will follow as the day follows night.
You heard it here first!
I commend you for trying to get your arms around a very complex issue.
As I wrote before, "whether the number of uninsured is 47, 37, 27 or 7 million people, that is only part of the problem." In many ways it is the least critical problem, except for those who get seriously sick with a chronic condition and have no insurance coverage, or have been denied coverage by the companies they had been paying premiums to for care or for those without coverage who can't afford to see a doctor and avoid treatment until it gets critical.
The core issue in the health care reform debate is future "affordability" of health insurance for every income group unless something is changed.
As I also wrote, "the fact that the current system is unsustainable is what must concern everyone whether or not they have coverage. There should be little debate on whether the current system is broken or whether it can be sustained over time without a major overhaul." I noted that "average family health insurance premiums have risen from $5,791 in 1999 to $12,680 in 2008 and are expected to possibly double by 2020. Wages which have been stagnant through most of the Bush years are unlikely to double by 2020"
To understand the broken system one need only read yesterday's announcement that Pfizer Inc. The world's largest drug maker, has agreed to pay US citizens $2.3 billion for its past history of health care drug marketing fraud - including the largest criminal fine in U. S. History.
What Pfizer did was use corrupt means to get doctors to prescribe their drugs rather than competing, cheaper options at an estimated cost of over $11 billion to the patients of those doctors. That excess cost was either paid by insurers - thereby increasing premium costs - or the government - thereby increasing taxpayer costs.
Pfizer was not alone among the major pharma firms in using such tactics. The Pfizer case is just the tip of the iceberg in petty and serious corruption that permeates the fee for services model of private insurance that is unique to the US.
You are absolutely correct, seniors and veterans currently have health care coverage. Yes they do. They are covered by a government funded and managed system that offers high-level quality care with no exceptions for the nature of patients' health care needs. These programs get very high marks in customer satisfaction. Medicaid, medicare and the VA are single-payer government plans that beat private plans on the critical measures of cost, quality and user satisfaction.
As for specific numbers in the categories you ask for details on, many are unavailable. More importantly, they are not really germane to the issue. When you argue the numbers in various categories of currently uninsured, you display a serious misconception about proposed reforms of the system.
The reform advocates, including Obama, are not calling for taxpayers to provide and pay for insurance coverage for the young and healthy who don't buy private insurance or for those making over $75k or for illegal immigrants or to replace existing programs.
Coverage will be paid for by those who are covered, with provisions for helping the poorest citizens including poor children and poor legal immigrants, probably with some subsidy. (Even the Republicans support such subsidies, as Walleye's revered Founding Fathers guaranteed the full rights of legal non-citizens in the Constitution!
The so-called public option is for a plan that will require those who choose the option to buy and pay for coverage just like private plans. The plan will offer lower costs than private plans whose high premiums pay for lobbying, marketing, high administration costs, huge executive compensation packages, excessive profits, etc.
I hope this is helpful.
Stan Da Man
09-03-09, 17:11
Whether the number of uninsured is 47, 37, 27 or 7 million people, that is only part of the problem, the fact that the current system is unsustainable is what must concern everyone whether or not they have coverage. There should be little debate on whether the current system is broken or whether it can be sustained over time without a major overhaul. You don't address that key concern, but rather provide debatable interpretations of the 2007 Census data.
Coverage will be paid for by those who are covered, with provisions for helping the poorest citizens including poor children and poor legal immigrants, probably with some subsidy. (Even the Republicans support such subsidies, as Walleye's revered Founding Fathers guaranteed the full rights of legal non-citizens in the Constitution!
The so-called public option is for a plan that will require those who choose the option to buy and pay for coverage just like private plans. The plan will offer lower costs than private plans whose high premiums pay for lobbying, marketing, high administration costs, huge executive compensation packages, excessive profits, etc. Against my better judgment, I'll weigh in here with a few unsolicited points.
Saying the current system is "unsustainable" is really no argument in favor of the Obama plan. I don't think the principal objection of most folks is that the current system is flawless. It is that the proposed system is likely to be far more flawed. The government's track record in running anything is not good. There's little reason to believe our government -- whether the current regime is run by Democrats or Republicans -- can do better than the private sector. Churchill's old saying is apt here: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." We don't scrap democracy because it is flawed. The alternatives are worse. That may be a judgment call where health care is concerned, but those arguing for change generally ignore the principal objection of most people. They argue that the current system is "broken" or "unsustainable" and argue that we must do something, even if it means having the government stick its nose further into the private sector. This latter part is where the argument goes off the rails for me.
Personally, my principal objection to most of what Obama is trying to do stems from how he intends to pay for it. He's a shameless soak-the-rich populist. Frankly, it's disgraceful -- and I actually like the guy.
Pointing to medicare and medicaid really doesn't help much in advocating for the Obama plan. One might argue that those are better run programs -- that point is highly debatable -- but at least the tax burden to pay for them is distributed more equitably. Every taxpayer pays 1.45%. The government then soaks employers with an equivalent tax, but at least all wage earners are required to pay for a portion of their share. Arguably, social security is even more democratic to the extent that it lapses at a certain point and, before that, everyone pays 6.2%. None of these programs, however, can be held up as anything approaching a model of fiscal efficiency. It's ironic that countries like France, which has a system akin to where Obama wants to go, is now talking about how its publicly funded system is broken and need of repair.
Here's some more stats from that 2007 census. In 2007, those in the top 1% of income in the United States paid 40% of all income taxes collected. Those in the top 5% of income paid 60% of all income taxes collected. Stated another way, the top 1% paid more than the bottom 95% combined.
So, who does Obama intend to stick with the bill for the yawning gaps in revenue needed to pay for his health care overhaul? The top 5%. Why? Because it's easy to sell (or, at least, he thought it would be easy to sell) Just get 95% to vote to have the other 5% pay for everyone's insurance. It's disgusting, shameful pandering. I won't compare Obama to Chavez, but he's using the same tactics. And, at base, this is my chief objection to the Democratic party -- their platforms are thinly-veiled tactics aimed at robbing the top income earners and giving the money to Democratic constituents -- as long as they vote early and vote often, thus keeping them in office.
When tactics like these are successful, they will break the system. Make no mistake, I'm not a big fan of the Republican party over the past 8 years. They lost me when they stopped paying attention to the bottom line. Today, unless you're a social conservative, which I'm not, it's difficult to vote for anyone without holding your nose.
Republicans may be adrift and without a coherent platform at the moment. But, Obama's methodology is dangerous, in my opinion, because he's going to destroy much of what made the country great in the first place. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and he's bent on wielding that arsenal. If he succeeds in regulating and destroying the venture capital markets -- one of the areas he's said he wants to review in the name of "fairness" -- he'll ruin one of the few remaining sectors that have generated much of the country's wealth over the past 30 years. Sarbanes-Oxley already has done enough damage, and it appears Obama is planning to finish the sector off.
Policies like these eventually trickle down and damage the lower classes. That's the risk here. Eventually, millions may not have food on the table. But hey, at least they'll have health insurance! I realize that arguments like that are a bit pejorative, and one could argue that the current system will lead to the same result. (Some might even argue that we're already there, but that would be silly. I'm just more confident that a government-run system will get us there -- and more quickly -- than the current system.
"Here's some more stats from that 2007 census. In 2007, those in the top 1% of income in the United States paid 40% of all income taxes collected. Those in the top 5% of income paid 60% of all income taxes collected. Stated another way, the top 1% paid more than the bottom 95% combined."
Framing the numbers in that manner is highly misleading.
In 2007 top 10% took in 49.7% of total wages. That's a wider gap than in the gilded age and even during the stock market boom of 1928.
Between 1993 - 2007 the top 1% captured literally half of the economic growth.
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/
Because income is so very concentrated at the top, saying "the top 1% paid more than the bottom 95% combined" doesn't really mean anything. Of course they did.
I've said it before, and in reality it means nothing to me. I'm living in Paraguay where the health care delivery system is just as good (and the women are hotter) as in the good old USA. Furthermore the health care in Paraguay ia available at a fraction of the price we pay in the United States (Cuba, for Christ's sake has a health care delivery system which is as good or better than the good old USA and Cuba doesn't have 2 cents to spend on health care). Anyway, here goes.
1) All the high-tech liver transplants, and bone marrow transplants and latest chemotherapy drugs approved by the FDA don't mean shit. None of these affect more than a minute fraction of the population and none of them work very well. There has not been even 1% of improvement in the survival of patients with lung cancer over the last 50 years.
2) Get over the idea you need to see a doctor for your common cold. In reality you don't need to see anybody. There is no treatment for the common cold and it will run its course whether or not you see a doctor. But if you insist on medical intervention I am sure we can have a 2nd year Medical Student (or the Hospital Janitor if the 2nd year Medical student is not available) see you and let you know that you are a whimpering crybaby.
3) You should be able to self medicate yourself. You don't need a doctors prescription for you worthless selflimiting medical conditions I. E. Common cold, eating at a greasy spoon and ending up with diarrhea or for your self induced hangover.
What I meant by this is, if you want to accept the responsibility i.e read Wikipedia on line, you should be able to buy almost any medication you want at the pharmacy and bypass the incredibly expensive process of getting the prescription in the first place, and the incredibly expensive process of getting the prescription refilled. Of course, in this perfect world, controlled substances i.e.' street drugs ' are legal, taxed and pay for most of yhe health care delivery system.
We are in a pickle because we have graduated way too many doctors. When I went to Medical School we were graduating 10,000 physicians a year. Now we are graduating 40,000 to 50,000 a year. You have to pay these people and it is not cheap.
One of the main reasons we are graduating so many medical students is gracias a Ted Kennedy (sorry Ricardo) who back in the late l960'sand 1970's came up with the bright idea to build more Medical Schools - think East Tennesse Medical School, East Carolina Medical school and Rolling Rock Medical School. The idea was that more doctors would foster competition resulting in a lowering of prices.
Nice try, but it didn't work. Physicians showed themselves perfectly capable of increasing the number of unnecessary tests, unnecessary exams and uneccesary office visits to negate any benefit from increased competition.
Try telling the old farts in the United states that they are not going to receive bone marrows transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants, or the latest chemotherapy drug at $100,000 a treatment and that all americans will have to take their silly ass colds, and diarrhea and hangovers down the street to perchance find someone who gives a shit.
Well, this is not going to happen and Obama's plan is not going to remedy the situation. Obama is not the villian and Obama is not the savior in this movie.
We are in a no win situation and unless the real Terminator and the real Dirty Harry get together and tell the American public that whining will not be tolerated - we are fucked.
P.S. By the way, I was voted Most Compassionate in my Medical School Class
You argue substance rather than hurl insults, slogans or obvious distortions. I'll make a few points though - one in line with Bame Mata.
Before I do, I admit Alamo may well be right and Obama plan or not, the current US system is fucked for the long haul.
(I am a satisfied OSDE member who loves leaving my doctors offices with a warm hand shake rather than a stiff bill!
First, as of today there is no official detailed "Obama" health insurance reform plan, just a set of principles along the lines I mentioned. There are numerous competing plans that have come out of or are being debated in the involved Congressional committees with a wide range of specifics. For good or for ill, Obama has recognized that under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws. Whether a good, fair or disastrous plan ends up on his desk is still an unknown, which makes so much of the over-the-top rhetoric of his detractors more than suspect.
Ironically the loudest citizen voices against changing the existing health insurance system are the people who aren't in it. The elderly on Medicare! The classic was the gentleman who yelled at his Congressman "Keep your stinking government hands off my Medicaid!"
Unfortunately, there is no Republican reform plan or a Republican set of principles that have been offered to address the core problems with the current system. The Republican plan is "just say no." That may be smart strategically, but I find it irresponsible.
I agree the government doesn't do things all that well including fighting wars these days. But a pretty compelling case can be made, that in regard to US health care, the current private sector model is hardly the best of all possible alternatives.
The US does offer superb health care to the wealthy, but to average Americans not so much. The efficacy of the current system is on a downward slope as costs escalate and the general health of most population groups has not kept pace with that of other countries with different systems.
Unfortunately, recent history has taught us a few lessons about letting business self-regulate. (To paraphrase an old slogan "Are your equity holdings better off today than they were four years ago?") And if government can't be trusted to do its job, what's the alternative? Churchill might say "government regulation is the worst way to curb dangerous corporate practices, except all others."
You are an obviously intelligent and pretty well informed guy. Accordingly, I am a bit surprised that you buy into the charge that Obama poses an existential threat to America capitalism. The details of his tax ideas do not support the charge he wants to "soak the rich" unless you want to hang that petard on each President from Eisenhower to Clinton.
The tax burdens for high income people that Obama has suggested are far less onerous than what was in place during the go-go years of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and no more onerous than what was in place under Reagan and Clinton. Where in the world does all the hyperbole on this come from? Bet you can guess.
Bame Mata is right about bending statistics. The statistics used in debates over tax burdens become impossibly confusing because of the range and mix of taxes people pay from payroll to corporate to capital gains to estate to property to sales to local and state and the deductions and exemptions that are allowed in each category. Measuring what level of taxation that is confiscatory is like asking, "how's your wife." The answer is compared to what!
I used to work for the infamous "Queen of Mean" Leona Helmsley, whose daily income was in excess of half a million dollars. With lousy accountants she may have paid the maximum 35% corporate tax or $175k a day (but I doubt it seeing as she famously observed "only the little people pay taxes!") Her workers at the Empire State Building had average wages of around $30,000. If they paid the 15% standard tax rate, it would take 38 of them to match her burden! At the end of the year, she would have paid $6.4 million and her 38 employees $171,000. Now that may seem a bit unbalanced. However, at the end of every day, she had $325k to spend or invest and each worker had $70. Looked at that way, maybe the progressive tax system isn't such a bad idea!
I wonder if an economy where the gap between the richest and everyone else keeps getting wider is the best model for sustained growth and social stability? As a unashamed liberal I just say no (oops that sounds Republican!
"Ironically the loudest citizen voices against changing the existing health insurance system are the people who aren't in it. The elderly on Medicare! The classic was the gentleman who yelled at his Congressman 'Keep your stinking government hands off my Medicaid!'"
This is born out in the most recent polling by CNN on the subject.
CNN / OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL.
August 28-31
Obama's Health Care Plan.
Favor Oppose.
60% 39% 18-34 years old
41% 56% 35-49 years old
46% 53% 50-64 years old
38% 60% 65 and older
The poll has a fairly large sampling error of +/-8% , but the trend is still unmistakable.
It's also interesting that when you change the language from Government Run Health Care or Obama's Health Care plan to simply Universal Health Coverage support for the initiative sky rockets.
For another reason to support a public option, look to the practice of recissions by the insurance companies. This is when the companies comb through a person's records and determine ways to cancel the policy when the patient becomes too high dollar (ie sick). This is why we hear stories about people losing coverage because their weight was listed wrong on a form. By their own congressional testimony insurance companies cancel policies on.5% of their clients.
That doesn't sound like much, but remember they aren't randomly canceling policies. It actually breaks down to if you get very ill you have a 1 out of 10 chance of losing your coverage. Just for getting sick and needing care.
If we leave it in the hands of insurance companies we are all treated as a loss as soon as we contract an illness and they look to get us off the books. You may not be a fan of government but I don't see how the current system is an optimal solution by any determination.
As Ricardo has said before, this isn't so much about covering the uninsured but holding down costs and guaranteeing that people have access to health care.
Stan Da Man
09-03-09, 22:08
But a pretty compelling case can be made, that in regard to US health care, the current private sector model is hardly the best of all possible alternatives. Perhaps so. But, again, I think that misses the point a bit. The issue is not whether the current system is flawless. It's not really even whether there are better systems. It is whether what is being proposed would be better. I realize that there is no concrete Obama plan, since nothing's been sent to his desk. But, even the vague details that do exist have turned off a substantial portion of the population. If you asked the same people in the poll whether they favor Universal Coverage where the government runs a substantial chunk and regulates extensively the rest, I bet the skyrocketing numbers would immediately fall substantially. That's the issue, in my opinion: The public doesn't want the government so involved. To the extent details exist about what Obama wants to accomplish, it's pretty clear the government would be heavily involved and (I think) equally apparent that this prospect is very offensive to a substantial portion of the population. I wouldn't advocate this, but I would submit that a proposal that simply lets government raise extra taxes (something it is good at) but keeps the government out of the actual provision of insurance, would fare much, much better than the current framework. Again, I wouldn't be in favor of that, but it would be an easier plan to sell.
Unfortunately, recent history has taught us a few lessons about letting business self-regulate. (To paraphrase an old slogan "Are your equity holdings better off today than they were four years ago?") And if government can't be trusted to do its job, what's the alternative? Churchill might say "government regulation is the worst way to curb dangerous corporate practices, except all others."I don't mean to nitpick, but I would take issue with this, as well. At least in terms of what most folks contend led to the current economic malaise -- the housing sector and the collateralized debt obligations that became so intertwined in all facets of the capital markets -- the blame for this really can be traced directly back to the government. Starting with the GI Bill in the 50s, HUD and various other government-sponsored programs to promote home ownership, right up to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and the artificially low interest rates at the beginning of this decade. The markets just responded to the perverse incentives fostered by government regulation -- especially in the late 90s through the first half of this decade.
Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame equally for this. They each altered the economics and the fundamental risk side of the equation that traditionally has been associated with extending loans. The "unregulated" companies (which we both know don't exist) simply responded to the false incentives initially created by government programs. To be sure, they had profit as their central motive. But, I hear far too many folks citing this as somehow "evil" or "wrong." Everyone likes social responsibility when it is someone else that has to be responsible.
I won't argue that regulation has no place in society. I would simply argue that regulations are to be avoided except where absolutely necessary. The housing industry -- and the laudable motives both parties may have had for promoting home ownership among different sectors of the population -- show that even the most well-intentioned legislation and social programs can have some pretty nasty consequences.
I know you weren't alluding exclusively to the housing sector, but many blame it for the current economic mess, and it's at least partly (if not mainly) to blame.[/QUOTE]
The tax burdens for high income people that Obama has suggested are far less onerous than what was in place during the go-go years of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and no more onerous than what was in place under Reagan and Clinton. Where in the world does all the hyperbole on this come from? Bet you can guess.
Perhaps. But most of the 50s, 60s and 70s were characterized by economic stagnation. It wasn't until regulation began to be curbed in the 80s -- culminating with the passage of the '86 tax act -- that our economy really exploded. This latter measure, while jarring and largely responsible for the bank failures of the late 80s and early 90s, set us on the path to several decades of largely unparalleled prosperity. Many will argue the point, especially those who currently attempt to dismantle or distort Reagan's legacy, but it was deregulation and reduction of tax that propelled the economy. I generally don't favor Democratic candidates, but I admired Bill Clinton mostly because he knew when not to interfere. There was virtually no significant, landscape-altering legislation passed while he was in the White House, except perhaps welfare reform. He didn't unduly fetter the capital markets. He just got out of the way. Smart man, that one.
Bame Mata is right about bending statistics. The statistics used in debates over tax burdens become impossibly confusing because of the range and mix of taxes people pay from payroll to corporate to capital gains to estate to property to sales to local and state and the deductions and exemptions that are allowed in each category. Measuring what level of taxation that is confiscatory is like asking, "how's your wife." The answer is compared to what!I can't bring myself to address directly Bame Mata's arguments. His / her points are too spurious to warrant comment, in my view. Regardless, however, the numbers I cited on tax burden are real and widely cited. They're incontestable and not lies or mere "statistics." If the best response is, "well, those folks make a lot of money," then I take it that there is no real response.
In truth, the statistics used on tax don't become confusing due to the myriad of layers of taxation that are imposed. It's just more obscene the more you look at it. At the end of each year, I take home less than 40% of what I earn after the entirety of the tax burden is factored into the equation. If you want to talk about exemptions, that's easy: They get taken away the more you make. Talk to any tax accountant about that. I don't mean to be flip about the issue. But, tax issues used to be far more complex when extensive tax shelters existed. In large part, that hasn't been true for two decades.
I got a kick recently when I read that one of the Oscar Mayer heirs is attempting to find 1,000 millionaires to stand up and agree that they should pay more taxes. Hmmmm. How much do you want to bet that he's a trust fund baby? He didn't start the company and, to the extent he pays any tax, it's likely at the 15% long term cap gains rate. If he's drawing any salary, he's a fool -- but then again, that is obvious from his quest. But, even as to this fool, I don't support raising his taxes.
I wonder if an economy where the gap between the richest and everyone else keeps getting wider is the best model for sustained growth and social stability? Ricardo, I enjoy your posts. It's a bit like the reason I listen to NPR every day: I don't agree with much they have to say, but I do enjoy hearing the other side of the debate. You're obviously a sharp guy with a tremendous amount of experience and insight, and I can certainly appreciate that.
On this last quote referenced immediately above, I think this probably best represents the fundamental difference between our points of view. In my view, it is not any government's function to address the "gap between the richest and everyone else," as you put it.
Poverty is relative, but folks tend to think of it only in today's terms. The poorest folks in this country today have it far better than most of the richest folks a few hundred years ago. Flush toilets, electricity, movies, cell phones, video games, etc. Etc. -- and yes, even our poorest can afford these things with minimal effort. Even if you divorce the temporal component, our poorest have it far better off than most of the middle class in a country like Argentina (to the extent a middle class exists there) I don't feel sorry for the wealthy who lived 200 years ago because they didn't have our modern luxuries, and I don't believe our government has any responsibility to try to equalize the gap between our poor and Argentina's middle class. (We may provide aid to an array of countries around the world, but that doesn't make it our responsiblity to do so.
Likewise, I just don't believe that it is government's role to try to narrow the gap between rich and poor in this country. Instead, government's responsibility should be to try to encourage everyone to generate more wealth to pay for the minimal interference that government inflicts on its people. If it can't do that, it should just get out of the way. That's a bit of an overstatement, but it's not far from my point of view.
At any rate, I enjoyed reading your point of view. I may not agree with it, but it's good to hear it articulated.
I kid you, of course, because we can guess who would be yelling at me "socialist". "nazi". "senior killer" (self-euthanasia I guess! And I'm sure I could scare someone up to call you a "capitalist pig!"
We obviously approach these issues from different philosophies and therefore we read history, statistical interpretation, measurements of beneficial outcomes, etc, differently.
I am an unabashed liberal - a lower middle class or upper lower class Boston Irish Catholic who grew up in JFK's congressional district and met him as an impressionable youngster - whose fairly deep study of economics and history has yet to uncover much countervailing evidence to shake his and my belief that government can and should play an ameliorating role in society.
I lived what I believed for a few decades. Working in government along side hundreds of dedicated, intelligent, honest and honorable people who shared my values. Whether we delivered well what we tried to can be debated.
I also worked a few decades in the private sector and saw how hard work, vision, creativity and the good old profit motive put bread on the table of workers (and caviar on the menu for the owners) I ran a $28 million dollar business with over 100 employees and know all the challenges of meeting a payroll and making a profit.
I admit it did gaul me when my successful efforts increased profits thereby adding millions to the net worth of some fairly despicable owners! That included Leona Helmsley - who made her money the old fashioned way - she sucked and fucked a horny old billionaire and inherited his $$$ when he passed!
What I did find in my years in both is that business is a lot less complicated than government. Getting to the bottom line has fewer moving parts than satisfying a myriad of constituencies wanting contradictory results. That is not a moral equivalency argument. Just a life experience observation.
I am certain you came to your beliefs in some similar fashion testing what you have seen against what you believe.
One other thing I learned first hand is that government is not inherently evil and private business is not pure and clean. Both are designed and operated by human beings and therefore equally susceptible to human-derived attributes such as stupidity, inefficiency, corruption, good works and high achievement.
My villains in the global meltdown range far and wide. At the base level is the intellectual conceit of economists who sold a theory of human behavior which on its face was demonstrably false. Ask any monger about negotiating with chicas and you will quickly dismiss the idea of self-correcting markets.
On a grander scale I think the debt habit is what killed the golden goose. The habit was fed by individuals. Corporations and governments who borrowed more than they should have to pay for things they didn't really need and ignored common sense. This profligacy was accelerated by new technologies that blinded everyone to predictable risks and allowed everyone to blithely ignore any and all warning signs, because the music was playing so loud all everyone wanted to do was dance.
My reading of history teaches me that an activist government under FDR came to the rescue of a devastated national economy and put in place a host of structural economic pillars that prevented the kind of excesses that caused the initial crisis. Those pillars worked pretty damn well for half a century and when we began to dismantle them we ended up back in the soup.
Now as we look ahead things are far more complex, as globalization and technological advances will make any efforts at systemic controls very difficult, even if we can figure out what to control and how to control it.
I also think we are living in a economic time when no one - no one - fully understands how the pieces fit together anymore. That is exciting - as it permits lots of experimentation and possible brakthroughs - but it is also very, very dangerous.
The "new normal" in the global economy that will emerge as the crisis recedes is going to disappoint many people around the globe and it will be interesting to see what new paradigm in economic beliefs wins the day.
These days - even after the Obama victory - I am concerned about the direction in the US. Assuredly for different reasons than you may be - or maybe not.
I fear the country is becoming "Argentinized" - to coin a word - meaning it will blame others for its receding good fortune, allow its institutions to wither, turn insular and inward, dumb itself down and continue to let false military adventures create an environment of fear and lose the good old American habit of getting on with making things better.
Jackson--explains that the posting personas of many on this board are very different than they are in person. Don't let any of the ranting and raving deter you.
I was really surprised about the ranting about Teddy Kennedy. REgardless of your point of view--this guy during the last 20 yaers of his life was a very effective senator--passing CHIPS--childern's health insurance when Bill Frist ran the Senate and W was in the White House--that is political know how and savey. History will remember him well and John McCain will also be remembered as an effective senator. This is even though they both are imperfect human beings, who both rose at times to demonstrate true courage in the senate. Teddy failed as a younger man in many ways, but that does not negate his achievements during the last 20 years of his life.
QuakHunter
09-04-09, 02:46
CNN / OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL.
August 28-31
Obama's Health Care Plan.
Favor Oppose.
60% 39% 18-34 years old.
41% 56% 35-49 years old.
46% 53% 50-64 years old.
38% 60% 65 and older.
The poll has a fairly large sampling error of +/-8% , but the trend is still unmistakable.The trend is definitely unmistakable. People over 35 (During the period of time where the prime earning years and accumulation of wealth take place) OVERWHELMINGLY reject the proposed healthcare plan. During the 18 - 35 period I drank a lot and chased women. Oh wait, I still do at 46 so nevermind.
Stan Da Man
09-04-09, 14:41
Ricardo,
I've never been to El Alamo, but I'd love to grab a pint or three to hash these things out. I doubt we'd solve anything, but it would be fun trying. If "capitalist pig" is the worst thing someone called me, I'd be doing well. I suspect you may feel the same way about a "socialist" jab.
We do approach things from different perspectives, but I appreciate your demeanor and your ability to articulate, and it's the different perspectives that make discussion forums like these go. I actually like a lot of what Obama is doing -- predominantly in the international arena. Sid would definitely disagree with me, but I also like much of what he's done domestically, such as letting some of the car companies go BK and cutting some of the bailouts off. I just object to much of the regulatory and tax issues.
Good to see you posting. I usually get back there every quarter or so. But, I was just there two weeks ago, and I have no fixed plans to return at the moment. A lot seems to be happening for one of my company's customers in Brazil right now, so I'm there more often now. That country also has its charms. If you're still in Buenos__Aires, I'll PM you to check whether a beer is an option next time I get down there. Being Irish and hailing from Boston, I'll bet you don't let silly little political differences get in the way of a good quaff.
Stan,
Next time you are in town we can make the Alamo serve as a faux White House where we channel Teddy and Reagan or Reagan and Tip O'Neill, my old political mentor. We can quaff a few as we debate our philosophies, tell a few jokes and outrage Sidney (who is a really good guy despite his leanings) We can invite Walleye along, if he promises to behave!
I promise not to make everyone sing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" unless we meet on St. Patrick's Day.
I do hope you never were a shoe salesman (reference - Teddy's Oval Office meeting with "the Gipper" on shoe imports where Ronnie only talked of his salesman experience and ignored the agenda topic of cheap shoe imports killing the domestic manufacturers. That was intentional and shrewd on his part no doubt.
Good luck in Brazil. I have yet to decide who are the hottest - Portenas or the Cariocas - but that comparison is a lot more fun to ponder than whether the world is better off with more or less regulation of global markets.
By the way when we get together, maybe you can help me understand how the advocates of free trade are unfazed when it leads to "massive domestic job losses - as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." Then those same free traders go ballistic when unions act to protect their members (who are all good, solid, taxpaying citizens) claiming the unions and their Democratic Party allies are the villains whose actions ostensibly lead to "massive domestic job losses as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." As Henry Higgins might say: "It's a puzzlement!"
There are some violently anti-union members who post here and rail against Obama, the D's, et al. Maybe in their time here they have come to confuse Peronism with the American labor movement?
Stay well!
Stan Da Man
09-04-09, 18:21
By the way when we get together, maybe you can help me understand how the advocates of free trade are unfazed when it leads to "massive domestic job losses - as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." Then those same free traders go ballistic when unions act to protect their members (who are all good, solid, taxpaying citizens) claiming the unions and their Democratic Party allies are the villains whose actions ostensibly lead to "massive domestic job losses as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." As Henry Higgins might say: "It's a puzzlement!"Now you're just baiting me. It's Labor Day weekend here, and I plan to celebrate my union-free weekend, so I'm not going to take the bait just yet. ☻ Have a good one!
Sidney. I don't get it either.
In 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power. His name was Richard Nixon.
As far as I know not many nations around the world demanded Nixon's return to power.
Now Hondorus does the same thing. The Supreme Court of Hondorus forced out the President of Hondorus for abuse of power and every fucking fruitloop in the world follows Chavez's chirping that it was a coup.
If we had a president with balls or brains, maybe our president has neither, we would have told Chavez to stick it up his filthy ass.
If we had told Chavez to shove it where the sun doesn't shine the number of countries listening to that idiot Chavez could have been counted on one hand.
In fact, we once had Presidents who defended democracies and supported the oppressed living under brutal dictatorships. Apparently not now.
I never thought I would see in my lifetime another president as confused and ineffective as that idiot Jimmy "shit for brains" Carter. However, it appears Obama may give Carter a run for his money. Frightening when you consider that it took us 4 years to figure out Carter was a complete and total idiot while it has only taken 6 months for Obama to live up to that description.
"In 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power. His name was Richard Nixon."
Is this true? I thought he resigned to avoid being impeached, nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
Wake up people. It is so obvious!Not that obvious. Its OK preaching to the converted, but care to explain why to the people who don't see it? They're the people who should be told.
Sidney and Alamo. Usually I prefer reasoned responses. This time, however, all I can say is you guys (who I like personally) are out of your fucking minds.
Obama by taking a careful stance on the Honduran impasse (which is less clear cut than you describe it Sidney) is far better than the idiocy of Reagan's Nicaragua debacle and Bush I's Panama fiasco.
Honduras is the least of problems back in the homeland. Any student of European history may look back to the Weimar Republic and get correctly concerned at tactics the opponents of Obama are using to try to nullify the 2008 election. That's something to worry about.
And if you think its because of his stimulus spending (40% of which was for middle class tax cuts) or health insurance reform proposals rather than because he is black, you may think that the BA chicas actually like sucking geezer dick!
The U. S. Political scene is being polluted by savage and vicious ranting of the talk-radio thugs. Their irresponsible and dangerous venom is spewed out every day to a significant number of people who mindlessly absorb the lies and distortions. Rush Limbaugh draws 14 million listeners per day, Michael Savage 12 million, Sean Hannity 10 million, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck about 3 million each. The total number of listeners to these poseurs on a daily basis is something like 28 million or more.
The mainstream press covers their calls for anti-democratic behavior and violence as though it was legitimate political discourse, which just magnifies its effect. Much of the press totally ignores the blatant, provable lies and fantasies that are being put into the minds of ignorant and angry people.
When you see gun-toting protesters at Obama events, somehow the mainstream press forgets to look back to how thousands of non-gun toting anti-Bush protesters were arrested and herded into fenced enclosures for hours during the 2004 Republican Convention in New York.
Mostly the talk show charlatans spread hatred, racial resentment, and a form of victimhood for their listeners who are no longer in charge of their fates, their families or the nation's politics and are fucking pissed about it. Most of the Obama-haters kids think they are fucking whack jobs.
(Three of my family members are card carrying nutters. We hardly speak any more and their kids can hardly tolerate them.
In reality the "talkers" do what they do to get ratings and make huge bucks, not to fulfill some commitment to civic duty. These guys commitment to democracy is the same as Bernie Madoff's commitment to safeguarding his investors' hard-earned money.
They are like the TV evangelists who preach Christianity on Sunday, run to the bank on Monday with the bags of money their poor flock sends them and spend Tuesday to Saturday in their mansions living a life of a Raj (many diddling young acolytes female and male)
The change in the tenor of talk show programs since the Obama election should be more of a concern for the future of American democracy than Obama's refusal to embrace the Honduran military.
(Sidney if Rush lived in Honduras, the military guys you like would have put under him under house arrest or exiled him (or worse) years ago)
Rush and company demonize as "socialists" and some evil lower life form - all Democrats (like me) and even moderate Republicans - none of whom are any farther left than they were for the past fifty years that the union survived fairly well.
They scream at their audience on a daily basis NOT to engage in reasoned discussion and debate, but to engage in "direct action" against "the enemy." They urge them to engage in mob violence, to disrupt meetings, to threaten public officials with bodily harm, to support and raise money for extremist paramilitary group, etc. Even when the anti-Iraq anti-Bush fever was at its' height, it was nothing like this.
Idiocy rules - think of the poor fool who yelled at his Congressman at a town meeting - "keep your stinking government hands off my Medicare!"
This may not end well. There are many people who want Obama dead and say so.
Take a minute and think of what will happen in the US if someone on the right takes Obama out. You can kiss the good old USA goodbye. What happens across the country will make what happened after King was assassinated look like tail gate parties when the hometown team loses a game. The entire black, brown and yellow populations, most women and educated men, as well as a generation of young people will turn away in disgust at what was fostered and by whom.
Obama haters I caution you to be careful - you may get what you wish for and then heaven help us.
Sidney. I fear all that pussy chasing has warped your thinking.
Obama may have delusions, but one is not to be a dictator. He certainly was delusional to approach the quest for bipartisanship.
A leader with dictatorial instincts would impose central control over every aspect of government, not allow committee chairs in the legislature to write the laws.
The health insurance reform has become chaotic because the legislative process dealing with major and complex issues is always chaotic. It has been 79 years and 18 Presidents since universal health insurance was first proposed by - that old socialist, I mean - Republican President Teddy Roosevelt.
And the US constitution - God bless it - guarantees that any President with dictatorial instincts will come a cropper. Case in point - Mr. Tricky Dick Nixon.
You are categorically wrong in your statement that "in 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power." That is not what happened. I know. I was there.
Now a true statement would be "In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States abused its power and forced the ascension of George W. Bush to the Presidency of the United States." They issued the first ever decision that only applied in a single case. Mind-fucking-boggling as we Bostonians say!
In 1974, the SCOTUS didn't force Nixon from power, but it did require him to obey the law. The nine court justices didn't accuse him of abusing power, they just told him he coudn't.
From 1973 through 1976 I was a chief assistant to US Senator Inouye from Hawaii. I worked for him on the famous Watergate Committee. That entity investigated the myriad crimes committed by Nixon and his top aides. Our investigations led to criminal trials which ended up putting the numerous Nixon aides and his Attorney General in jail.
When Nixon refused to turn the famous secret tapes of his Oval Office conduct to prosecutors as material evidence in a raft of felony cases, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the President had to obey the law and provide that evidence. They ruled "no man is above the law." Pretty good idea if you ask me.
Nixon knew the tapes proved he had been at the center of a criminal enterprise and he was toast. His ordering of breaking and entering, his money laundering, his suborning perjury, his running an unlawful cover up of a long string of crimes, his cheating on his taxes while he was President, etc. Were documented, on the public record and undeniable. He had to go.
A delegation of senior Republican leaders went to the White House to inform him there were only a small handful of Senators who would not vote to impeach him and remove him from office. Those Republican leaders forced his hand, not the Court. So he resigned the Presidency.
As Walter Cronkite would say "And that's the way it was!
As a coda, many Nixon apologists claim he only did what other Presidents had done. That is bullshit, of course. There is scarce evidence to support those claims. But in the nation where free speech rules, you can say anything. Just ask Glenn Beck!
And if you think its because of his stimulus spending (40% of which was for middle class tax cuts) or health insurance reform proposals rather than because he is black, you may think that the BA chicas actually like sucking geezer dick! - Ricardo quote
Sidney, I think you have hit a nerve. Although the Hondorus situation may be a little more complicated than we realize, it probably is not that much more complicated.
Ever since this Hondorus situation began I have been hoping that Obama was really just too clever for Chavez. Maybe Obama was giving Chavez and his looney tune dictator friends a little lip service, but fighting them behind the scenes. Hondorus has not returned their wantabe dictator and it doesn't appear they will. There is a possibility Obama is on top of things.
There is also the possibility that Obama could not cross the street by himself, even with the aid of a pack of seeing eye dogs and a squadron of eagle scouts helping him. This should not be too surprising because the sad fact is Obama never accomplished a fucking thing in the real world before being elected president.
And Ricardo, I am not sure what you mean by the above quote. I hope you do not mean that anyone who criticizes Obama is by definition a racist. In my opinion, the President who was treated the harshest while in office was Clinton, and I don't think there was anything racial about that.
In my opinion the criticism Obama is receiving has little or nothing to do about race. It has to do about Obama.
Conversely, if Obama starts acting like a Colin Powell, a lot of people, like myself, who are a little concerned about Obama will become big Obama supporters.
Alamo. No, not all critics of Obama are racists, just a lot of them. Just track the age, race and regional demographics of who spout the over-the-top comments, listen to the language and make a reasoned judgment and you will have a hard time making the case race is not a factor in much of the vitriolic opposition to the man.
It is unfortunate that so much venom is aimed at our political leaders. Opposition and criticism is fair, some deserve our disdain, but the tone is pathetic.
For example, with all due respect I don't think you are the arbiter of what the "real world" consists of. In reality the real world is a pretty complex place with lots of moving parts, not just some enclave where only business owners and entrepreneurs are worthy of respect. Writers, professors, artists, priests, laborers, community organizers, bar tenders, waitresses, and chicas and on and on all make up the real world.
Obama's achievements don't need my elucidation and don't warrant your silly insult.
If you can get Powell's email address get in touch with him and ask him what he thinks about how Obama is doing and what is being done to him. I bet you would come away with a different attitude than you articulate today.
As for Honduras, Obama is a little busy with other priorities and I don't quite see Latin America slipping into the abyss because his instinct has been to react to an internal political dispute in a sovereign nation with deliberation and tact.
His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.
There are "troubling similarities" between the US President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.
In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.
The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."
Although the authors support the Federal Reserve's moves to slash interest rates to just above zero and embark on quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the system, they warn that greater intervention could set the US back further. Rowley says: "It is also not impossible that the US will experience the kind of economic collapse from first to Third World status experienced by Argentina under the national-socialist governance of Juan Peron."
The paper, which recommends that the US return to a more laissez-faire economic system rather than intervening further in activity, has been endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan, who said: "We have learned some things from comparable experiences of the 1930s' Great Depression, perhaps enough to reduce the severity of the current contraction. But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work."
The authors of the pamphlet, Charles K. Rowley and Nathanael Smith, give their views.
Mr. Obama will not be relevant for much longer, as his foolish socialist policies have already made him the president to lose his popularity more quickly than any other in history. He will be reading off his teleprompter to a Republican congress in only 15 more months. And the second coming of Ronald Reagan (my guess is General Petraeus) will sweep the second coming of Jimmy Carter out of office in only 3 more years.
There is little or no chance that Mr. Obama will able to do what Mr. Clinton after he lost Congress to the GOP in 1994 - tack to the center in order to get reelected. First of all, Clinton was a capitalist while Obama is clearly a socialist. Second, Obama's inflated self-opinion of messianic status makes him unable to realize the error of his ways. Third, Obama's governing style, derived from Saul Alinsky, relies on demonizing and attacking strong opponents rather than working with them to reach a middle-ground compromise, the way Clinton was able to do with the Republicans 15 years ago.
We haven't even gotten to the inevitable international crisis when Mr. Obama's foreign policy of "if I apologize for America enough times, they will learn to love us" leads to a humiliating episode that exposes Obama's elemental weakness, much to the disgust of the American electorate.
In reality the real world is a pretty complex place with lots of moving parts, not just some enclave where only business owners and entrepreneurs are worthy of respect. Writers, professors, artists, priests, laborers, community organizers, bar tenders, waitresses, and chicas and on and on all make up the real world.A brilliant example of obstrufication through wordsmithing.
The fact is that Obama did not run for a job as a writer, professor, artist, priest, laborer, community organizer, bar tender, etc. He ran for a job as the chief executive officer of the largest organization in the world, a position for which he is woefully unqualified. The reality is that Obama has never actually managed so much as a lemonade stand.
For those of you who would cite his education as a sufficient job qualification, I would suggest that only someone with an education and no experience could possibly believe that education is a substitute for experience.
Still don't get it, then think of it like this: Who would you want piloting your next 747 flight? An aeronautical professor who has never flown so much as a Cessna, or a senior captain with 20 years experience and 5,000 flying hours?
I've been communicating with old classmates in the DC area who have risen to various medium level government positions over the years. They all relay to me that from their inside vantage the Obama administration is an organizational joke, from the constant vetting mistakes, the bureaucratic inefficiency of all these Czars, and the leadership stumbles in their attempts to pass a health coverage plan (now he's decided to write his own bill?)
Ricardo, I appreciate your presentation of the liberal perspective, but there's a big difference between your DailyKOS audience and this forum: Most AP have brains and can see right through your eloquence.
Thanks,
Jackson
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.
Jackson. Maybe you missed it, but some of your fellow members are in my camp, as witnessed by their comments. In any case I am certain you welcome opposing points of view on issues beyond whether to negotiate with the chicas or not.
Later in the week I will address the Metkim posting on the recent paper issued by conservative economists, supported by the Nobel Prize winning Professor James Buchanan, which questions Obama's use of government spending to rescue the economy from collapse. Suffice it to point out a very opposite view is argued by other Nobel Prize winning economists including Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz.
The dueling Nobel winners' arguments go back over eighty years to the whether the New Deal worked. Over many years and hundreds of books and studies, neither side has ever decisively won those debates. Now the same issues and arguments are being debated as relates to Obama.
In many ways, the conflicts are semi-religious in nature - like Jews saying Christ was a great prophet and Christians claiming he was the Son of God. Neither can prove the point. In economics, however, the claims are buttressed with charts, tables and brain-numbing statistics.
This post addresses Sidney's error-filled claim of Obama as a serial violator of the US Constitution.
Whoever was the source of your claims, my friend Sid, needs to do some serious research on the evolution of constitutional law especially the concept of "implied powers." As a former professor of constitutional law, Obama knows what the Founding Fathers wrote and meant and what has evolved as that document has been interpreted over 220 years.
Using Sidney's framing method one can say "No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to create an air force." That is true. Perhaps because, as smart as the boys from Philadelphia were in 1787, they didn't know man would fly. No bother though, because Congress has the power to raise and support the armed forces. In constitutional law that translates into an "implied power" to create an air force.
Similarly, under the same construction, each of the things denied under the Constitution according to Sid that were carried out by Obama are completely legitimate. They are "implied" - derived from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
US courts have taken an expansive view of the implied powers specifically related to commerce - since the earliest days of the republic. The courts have given full sanction to a wide range of business-related actions of the federal government and in so doing allowed the US economy to grow, prosper and become the envy of the world.
If the complaints made by Sidney had any basis in constitutional law, rest assured AG Eric Holder would be a very busy boy handling cases brought by the aggrieved victims of the dastardly deeds of Obama's constitution busters. As far as I know no such cases are awaiting adjudication anywhere in the US.
Sidney states:
"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to fire private company employees." True.
In fact:
The Obama Administration has NOT "fired" a single bank or automotive executive. As a condition of being provided with taxpayer funds to help them survive (a time honored tradition practiced by prior administrations and an implied power of the executive) Obama's team, as a condition of future funding, required the boards at the finance-seeking institutions to institute changes in failed management practices to better protect the government investments (a prudent step that is standard practice among investors when entities seek new financing)
The boards of directors at these entities acting, in their capacity the ultimate deciders on personnel, a handful of senior executives go, whose failures had led to their firms need for government assistance. They were not fired by Obama, nor were their failures rewarded with taxpayer funds.
Sidney states:
"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to own private companies. Technically true.
In 1979, the US government bailed out Chrysler using an agreement with a wide range of provisos. In a similar manner the GM bailout was structured by the Obama team in order to keep a critical company afloat.
The GM deal included a proviso that the US taxpayers receive an equity stake in the renewed GM. The equity deal protects the taxpayers' interests, assuring a return on the public investment when the company returns to profitability (a prudent step that is standard practice among investors when entities seek new financing)
Nothing in the constitution precludes government from providing financial assistance to private companies, nor from structuring loans that require repayment through equity, direct payments, etc. These have been deemed implied powers for decades.
Sidney states:
"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to set salaries in the private sector, as Obama's administration is currently doing in banks that have taken TARP money."
The Obama team has NEVER set salaries for TARP recipient banks. What it did was to agree that TARP supported companies can pay their executives as much as they see fit. For salaries in excess of $500,000 compensation would be issued as stock. The only restriction is that the execs cannot sell their new holdings, until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government. Nothing unconstitutional here, rather it all seems both wise and fair.
Sidney states:
"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the executive branch the power to appoint Czars to make rules governing private industry, that role is reserved for the legislative branch of our government."
The word "Czar" is journalistic shorthand and has NO official status or standing under Obama, nor did it under any of the "Czars" (for Drugs, etc. Appointed by previous Presidents.
The so-called Obama Czars, like their predecessors, have no extra-legal or unconstitutional powers. Any regulatory or executive power they exercise is derived from the authorizing legislation passed by Congress that precisely defines the scope of those powers.
Sidney states:
Nowhere in the U. S. Constitution does it give the President the power to set aside contracts.
The Obama administration has NOT "set aside" ANY outstanding GM or other company contracts. GM itself amended contracts of all sorts as it has worked its way out of the threat of closing down and prepared to accept government funds.
It is completely legal for entities to renegotiate and restructure contracts. It happens every day. When GM restructured its business, prior to getting government funding, it negotiated with ALL of its stakeholders. Management, bondholders, the unions, et al, ended up with a raft of amended contracts on compensation, etc. Everyone made sacrifices. No one group was "shafted" at the expense of another. Nothing done by the Obama team or GM was illegal or unconstitutional.
I apologize for being pedantic, but the massive amount of misinformation that shows up on blogs including this one needs to be refuted.
An informed citizenry is the only true guarantor of freedom!
I think Jackson and Hunt99 have hit the nail on the head.
If those people who have spent a lifetime feeding at the public trough only knew how much we want them to get a real job I. E. one that we are not paying for.
As starters I say we give Barnie Franks a yearly staff allowance of twenty-five cents. Of course Barnie can keep his unlimited access to free Big Macs which it appears he is already taking full advantage of.
P.S. if Barnie has an office in a building that you and I own, he will, of course, have to pay rent.
P.S. for those who think Bernie Franks is so stupid he doesn't know he is stupid, think again. Bernie recently had a IQ contest with a dining room table and Bernie ran a close second.
In paticular this is right on, ''But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work."
Sad SidWhen I was at the University of Michigan, Baylor School of Medicine, Texas Heart Institute, and the University of California at San Diego, I was always told that of you can't say what you want to say in 250 words you have nothing to say.
Here goes.
I have read Obama's words for our school children. I am impressed. Obama has a heart of gold. I can see why people follow him.
However, at the end of the day, government, at every level, is a cancer and if you let government grow it will kill the patient.
I am not sure Obama, as sincere as he appears to be, understands this.
For Ricardo - less than 250 words
You are a medical doctor and you make an inane, generalized statement like "government at every level is a cancer and if you let it grow it will kill the patient!" Then you expect people to take you seriously?
Given your foolish observation, first I shudder at your diagnostic skills and then I worry if you are self-medicated. No wonder malpractice insurance is so high.
As for your 250 word limit, maybe that had to do with your esteemed mentors' capacity to absorb complex information.
Warmest regards!
By the way, did you ever treat Jackson? Michael that is?
Ricardo,
There is a fine line between a spririted debate and a personal attack.
Your comments to El Alamo clearly crossed that line.
Thanks,
Jackson
Wild Walleye
09-08-09, 13:43
This is not a dig at your intelligence, in fact the ranks of Useful Idiots are overpopulated by people who consider themselves to be part of the intelligentsia.
Believers (misguided or otherwise) do not swing elections. The election of Obama was due in large part to the votes of white, 'independents.' The very same people he is and has been losing in droves. These 'independents' took everything the main stream media fed them last year, hook line and sinker.
They have been jarred out of their trances and are starting to pay attention, probably for the first time in their lives (doesn't bode well for candidates dependent upon the mainstream media as part of their campaign efforts)
A monger (who clearly does not rise to the ranks of the intelligentsia) made this observation back in July:
That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.
Ricardo,
The wagons are forming a circle. They are hanging the NOT WELCOME SIGN. You can walk away with a smile, but I prefer you to engage them.
My posts over the past weeks have elicited an interesting array of comments. I now wonder if the title of the forum would be more accurately titled "American Politics As Practiced during the Obama Administration - Submit pro-Administration Views At Your Own Risk."
One faction of respected Forum members including Jackson, Sidney, Alamo and a few others opines that:
1. My respect for the current President of the United States who was elected by a large majority of its citizens in a free election is misplaced as for some reason I don't recognize the fact that he is a "criminal" or "socialist" who is in the process of destroying America or worse.
2. My economic views - despite my professional training, work experience in government, business, consulting and writing, along with the concurrence of the highly-regarded business leaders and the majority of respected economists across the globe - are bogus and reflect a basic ignorance of capitalism.
3. My attempts at providing AP members for their consideration an alternate point of view generally supportive of the new President and of what is going on back in the states including analysis, factual information and ideas are mostly worthy of contempt.
4. I am seriously misguided because I don't view government as evil or public servants as lower life forms who all just feed at the public trough.
5. My "left slanted" views are "crap" based on some form of "indoctrination."
While another faction, which doesn't share the views expressed by my more frequent detractors, have offered public and private encouragement. They say it is about time someone on the forum with a brain, balls and actual knowledge is giving the President's critics a run for their money. I am advised to "hang in there."
What's a thoughtful person to do?
Am I the guilty party who went over the line? Did I err in taking offense at Alamo's claim that ""government at every level is a cancer and if you let it grow it will kill the patient!"
In the light of day this morning I think I would have been wiser to ignore his post. Rereading it I can see its self-contained fallacy needed no amplification from me? I never considered perhaps he was referring exclusively to the Argentine government. No argument there!
Still, after a few glasses of Pinot Noir last night, understandably, I did find a bit offensive, his inference that my work in public service and the good, hard working, dedicated people I knew and know in government actually posed an existential threat to the survival of society as we were spreading a "cancer."
Yet, despite our back and forty, I still think my adversaries here are descent guys and we all share much of what is enjoyable as we experience the BA experience.
I would bet if Jackson started a forum "Argentine Politics during the Kirchner Administration" we would be falling all over ourselves in agreement - that is before the site got closed down!
You can postulate all the liberal interpretaions that you please. O is a serious violator of USA laws. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You have spent too many years being indoctrinated by the liberal left to be objective.Sydney,
I'm genuinely interested. Which laws has he violated? Just one will do.
Thanks in advance.
Steve
I'm genuinely interested. Which laws has he violated? Just one will do.I've been wondering the same thing myself.:-)
Stan Da Man
09-08-09, 20:20
Hang in there, Ricardo. I don't agree with a lot of what you've got to say. But, the point-by-point refutation several posts back was very well done.
You've got a right to engage in namecalling as much as anyone else here. I just don't think you need to do it. I'll be the first to admit that it is tough not to do so when you're attacked, and I'll also be the first to admit that I'm not above the fray.
At any rate, I enjoy reading your perspective. You may have gathered that I lean rightward to the extent I lean at all. Still, if everyone's saying the same thing, these message boards get pretty dull.
Sydney,
I'm genuinely interested. Which laws has he violated? Just one will do.
Thanks in advance.
SteveProbably the same "law" that President Bush aka "The War Criminal" was accused by the liberals of having violated for years.
In other words, none, thus demonstrating the hyperbole in which both sides have engaged.
Nevertheless, what I believe Sid and others actually mean when they accuse the President of breaking the law is that they believe that the President has violated the US Constitution by overstepping his constitutional authority. This may be correct, but it's not a violation of the Constitution until the Supreme Court makes a specific ruling, and it's not a criminal act until the Congress passes a law that makes it one, and even then said newly-enacted law would not be retroactive to prior acts.
Thanks,
Jackson
O is a serious violator of USA laws. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Jackson,
Sydney seems to be pretty unequivocal here. "No ifs, ands, or buts about it." Come on Sydney, were you just using hyperbole or were you making a serious argument?
Oh, wait a minute.....Never mind. Its Sydney!
Not sure which law you're speaking about Sydney. Is going bankrupt illegal in the USA? Do you mean personally bankrupt, the country, or some other entity?
If he's breaking laws, why doesn't someone take him to court?
Have a good trip, but hurry back, there are people here waiting for an answer!
Jackson:
I just came from a great concert by the brilliant American jazz pianist, Brad Meldhau, at the Gran Rex and decided to see what's shaking on AP. I see things are SOP on the great pages.
After I read your, Steve's, Stan's and Schmoj's comments, out of respect for the encouragement I have received from numerous fellow AP posters, I offer comment on the on-going colloquy.
Perhaps we should give Sidney the opportunity to complete his travels and then provide his own explanation of his claim that Obama is a "serious violator of US laws" unless he has appointed you his spokesman. (I would prefer Dana Perino, W's former flack. She is blonder, more slippery and hotter)
In any case your initial tentative defense of him includes a creative and somewhat novel take on constitutional law. I regret to observe your understanding of it is rather shaky.
In your parlance, a President can possibly violate the US Constitution by overstepping his constitutional authority, however "it's not a violation of the Constitution until the Supreme Court makes a specific ruling."
WRONG!
If a President oversteps his constitutional authority, he (or someday she) has violated the law. If a Presidential act ends up before the court on a claim that it violated the constitution and the court finds it didn't, obviously, the President is home free. However, should SCOTUS rule otherwise, first the President must cease and desist from continuing to violate the constitution and the law. Then as regards to any prosecution of a Presidential crime, it is up to the Justice Department to proceed with a criminal case if it deems it is warranted and / or for the Congress to decide whether to proceed with impeachment proceedings if it deems the President's conduct warrants removal from office.
You then state some undefined Presidential behavior: "is not a criminal act until the Congress passes a law that makes it one, and even then said newly-enacted law would not be retroactive to prior acts."
AGAIN WRONG!
In truth, other than having the process of law-making backwards, I have no fucking idea what you are talking about with this statement and my guess is neither do you.
As for the correct process of making law (remember I worked as a senior aide in the United States Senate for four years) when Congress passes a law and the President signs it, if it includes provisions that require adherence to specific actions or behavior, any acts in violation of such provisions by a President or anyone else is illegal and subject to prosecution and punishment.
I hope this clarifies your misconceptions.
In our lifetime, only one President ever claimed that if the President does something, just because he is President it is legal. That was Tricky Dick Nixon who made that statement to an incredulous David Frost in the famous TV interviews. At the time he was ex-President Nixon and his claim, which was absurd on its face, helped turn him from a national embarrassment to an international figure of public ridicule.
(We know Sidney is on a tear about Presidents with dictatorial ambitions. Maybe we should look out for a copy of the famous bumper sticker to get him as a gift that said "Nixon's the One!")
More recently, Bush II had his politically-appointed lawyers write justifications for a range of actions related to Iraq, the war on terror, torture, enhanced interrogation, etc. His legal minions claimed that the "commander-in-chief" clause in the constitution gave the executive branch authority when the nation was at war to bypass existing international treaties (considered binding in the constitution) as well as other domestic statutes. Many of those justifications have been challenged in court and in the vast majority of decisions, courts up to and including the Supreme Court (with many Republican-appointed judges concurring) have turned aside the claims of the Bush lawyers. Since taking office, the Obama Administration has rejected both the Bush practices and the rationales of extra-constitutional prerogatives.
But enough of Professor Rust on constitutional law, let's just wait until Sidney completes his travel and makes his case.
I know many of us will await with interest to see if Sidney has any new bombshells to present with credible and compelling evidence or even a "smoking gun" that supports his claim.
I remain dubious, given my prior observation that if there was anything to such claims, the AG Eric Holder would already be inundated with cases brought by aggrieved victims of the dastardly deeds of Obama's constitution busters. Also, I repeat, as far as I know no such cases are awaiting adjudication anywhere in the US. Finally, so far Dicky Cheney has not tried to gain access to the White House to perform a citizen's arrest!
However, should Sidney just regurgitate the list from his earlier post, that he may have innocently copied from Fox or one the right-wing blogs, with bullet points on all the heinous things Obama has done that are supposedly not enumerated in the constitution, I will again refer you to my earlier response.
There, I briefly explained the established concept of "implied powers" which dates back to the earliest days of the Republic and validates Obama's actions (virtually all of which mirror similar acts of past presidents that were at the time accepted as fully consistent with the constitution)
Given the age, educational and wordly profiles AP kin folk, I would hope we are beyond the silliness of birthers, death panels, etc. And these pages don't begin to attract the tin foil cap crowd and we don't keep reading the same old same old.
Jackson, should you need further clarification on any constitutional or legislative niceties, don't hesitate to forward your inquiry.
I am not interested in playing your games!Sydney,
I'm not playing a game. As I said previously, I'm genuinely interested in knowing which laws he's broken. Please take my word for it. I think its you that's playing the games, so you should either put up or shut up. If you can name just one law he's broken as President I'll agree with you, otherwise we can assume you're just being hyperbolic.
The only thing that could have some merit (my view) where Obama broke the law is with the General Motors debacle: bankruptcy. The bond holders lost their status, pecking order in distribution of assets. Not being a lawyer, doctor or former SEC dude, what the hell do I know. If contract law was broken with the bond holders, my hat is off to Obama.
Corporate suits, doctors, lawyers and farmers have been feeding off the government trough forever. The only reason they are all pissed off and yelling socialism is they see their piece of the pie shrinking. It is not about what is best for the country and the people, it is all about greed. F!@#em all but nine.
Stan Da Man
09-09-09, 16:03
Ricardo:
Presidents break laws all the time. All of them do. Obama is no exception.
This is not some sort of conspiracy theory. The fact is we have three branches of government, legislative, executive and judicial. Congress makes laws; the executive branch enforces them; the judicial branch interprets them.
Every President -- as head of the executive branch -- for the past 200 years has "broken the law." Why? When a law gets passed, the executive branch has to enforce the law (or not enforce it, which can also lead to "breaking the law") Before the judiciary ever has a chance to interpret the law, the executive branch (including the Justice Department) are charged with putting it into action. That would be easy if laws were like mathematical equations, but they're not. There are gray areas with all of them. There's an old saying when looking at any law: If the legislature knew what it meant, it would have said so. These things are never very clear when applied to real life.
So, the executive branch enforce or chooses not to enforce; someone's nose gets out of joint; the President's actions, through his appointees and cabinet members, get challenged; the judiciary makes a decision. Voila! The law was either broken or not.
Each executive branch has been hauled into court hundreds of times by thousands of litigants during the tenure of each President for the past 200 years -- from environmental zealots to real estate developers; from labor unions to corporate interests; from the media to civil rights activists to taxpayers rights groups to plain old private citizens. Each administration's policies have been held to violate the law by some court -- from district courts to bankruptcy (non-Article III courts) all the way up to the Supreme court. This includes all manner of things -- failure to enforce environmental legislation or over-zealous enforcement of environmental legislation; Civil Rights Act enforcement; Voting Rights Act enforcement; appropriation of Title VII funds; line-item veto power; government service rules; enforcement of drug laws; approval of drug laws (FDA); refusal to allocate funds to particular projects; tacit endorsement of religion (e. G. School prayer or religious access to public facilities); etc. Etc. Etc. Ad nauseam. Con law books are literally filled with such cases. It's why there are con law professors. Find me a president over the past 200 years whose policies have not been held to be violative of some law, and I will prove you wrong. If you asked Obama how many Presidents have never violated "the law" while in office, I guarantee you he would say zero. Well, I can't guarantee what he would say. But, he would know that the correct answer is: none.
Are we just talking about personal participation in breaking the law? It sure doesn't sound like it. How could we know exactly whether a particular policy emanated directly from a President's lips or only from one of his advisers, cabinet appointees or another appointed bureaucrat? Most of the stuff you've laid at Bush II's feet sure aren't traceable directly to his statements. You describe policies put in place by his "politically appointed lawyers" (which ones aren't? And his "minions." When does something become a President's direct policy, which which he is responsible and for which he can be labeled a "law breaker," and when does it become only something his minions are responsible for? Are we just talking about intentionally disregarding the law -- knowing that your actions violate the law but doing something anyway -- rather than a legitimate disagreement about how to enforce "the law"?
If so, it's not much of a debate. It's impossible to prove outside of a direct confession, which we won't get.
By the way, I believe Jackson is referring to ex post facto[I] laws -- the idea that an action not previously forbidden cannot be prosecuted pursuant to a law enacted after the conduct at issue. He's technically correct that conduct not already forbidden, by a President or otherwise, can't be retroactively challenged through the passage of new legislation. The real problem, though, is that our systems is so bloated with laws for everything that it's pretty difficult to find any sort of conduct that someone can't [I]argue violates some law, somewhere.
By the way II: If someone wanted make a citizen's arrest of Obama for violating the law, it probably won't be that hard. The Clintons banned smoking in the White House -- many will recall that Monica Lewinsky did not actually smoke the cigar. Bush II maintained the no smoking ban. I have not heard that Obama overturned that ban -- and he said he won't. Obama says he won't smoke in the White House, but that's not the way the smart money is betting. Sooner or later he'll succumb. My bet is that he already has. If prosecuted, though, I'd volunteer to defend him on that one.
Stan,
A very reasonable post, but when Sydney says.
O is a serious violator of USA laws. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I assume he's not talking about breaking a smoking ban!
I get the impression that even though he obviously hates the President so much, Sydney's not going to let on about these serious violations, so I'll leave this here.
Stan,
Its a pleasure to read a post that shows a good understanding of how government works, written in clear, emotion-free language. What you write sets up the opportunity of a rational back and forth, rather than the emotional rants and definitively stated untruths that too often show up on posts like AP. I enjoy reasoned debate and detest the mindless name calling that we see too much of (although sometimes I can't help myself and I sink to the level of the attack squad and then seek redemption!
First, you will get no argument from me that our law books are bloated with silly, unenforceable, outdated, unfair and even dangerous laws. Like most AP members I refer to the former homeland as "sex prison." As we know, in most states it is best not to ask: "Anyone for a little recreational sodomy?"
I take mild exception to your blanket statement that "Presidents break laws all the time. All of them." You do buttress your opinion with some pretty good analysis and fair, if not necessarily flawless, logic. Kudos.
Maybe members of the Obama team have already broken certain laws and maybe some more will at some time in the future. Time will tell.
However, the posts on this issue were started when Sidney made some specific charges that Obama was a serial violator of the US Constitution. Then I refuted those charges and Jackson came to Sidney's defense and I responded to him.
I agree with you that these debates would be easier "if laws were like mathematical equations, but they're not" and that "If the legislature knew what it meant, it would have said so." Your point was a daily concern when I worked in Washington for Senator Inouye in the 1970s.
Language is fungible, which is why strict constructionists arguments over the intent of the Founding Fathers can get bizarre. As you state, "Each executive branch has been hauled into court hundreds of times by thousands of litigants during the tenure of each President for the past 200 years."
Obama's turn may be right around the corner, but we haven't turned that corner yet. Until we do and some court issues a decision with a ruling to that end the claims made by Sidney hold no water.
Another complication (thank you Founding Fathers) is that the constitution gives the President the "implied power" to ignore the full and / or precise letter of the laws as passed by Congress. There is a long history of Presidential "signing statements" going back to James Monroe, where the President signs legislation sent by Congress into law and addends a written statement detailing certain provisions that will not be executed, along with an explanation.
In essence the President declares which provisions will not be enforced. One could argue the President's actions will be breaking the law by omission. But that is not the case, as the courts have sanctioned these statements and the resulting executive inaction, as an inherent power of the President. (I will not address whether W abused this power during his eight years, only to note he signed far more statements than any predecessor)
I would identify another serious distinction in law that is pertinent to your discussion. It is whether and when the executive branch breaks the law by commission. As you know in criminal law an essential element is intent and that is another condition that would apply as well should a President or an appointee willfully and knowingly break the law.
You ask - "When does something become a President's direct policy for which which he is responsible." I am sure you remember Truman had a sign on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." As for Bush II's, the lack of such as sign didn't absolve him of responsibility for the actions of his government. My guess is there was an invisible sign that said "The Buck Stops There" with a sign pointing toward Cheney's office.
I noted that the controversial memos were written by "politically appointed lawyers" which prompted your question, "which ones aren't?" There are thousands of professional career DOJ lawyers who do not serve "at the pleasure of the President." They are hired through a rigorous non-partisan selection process that precludes politics as a consideration. They can only be fired for cause after a semi-judicial hearing.
The DOJ since its early days was designed to be a politics-free zone where the law was supreme. There are pages upon pages of internal work rules in the DOJ to assure that is how the place functions. No one assumes perfection in the matter, but fortunately throughout history most administrations did a pretty good job.
(Two documented exceptions were Nixon and W. To wit, as a raft of White House and AG office emails document, the Bush DOJ did illegally introduce politics into the career lawyers selection process, as well as into US attorney firing and replacements. But thats a whole other discussion.
When the controversial Bush war and torture debates were under way, the career DOJ lawyers refused to write the opinions the White House wanted. In fact, they wrote counter opinions for the record that detailed why what was being proposed was illegal, but they were ignored. In at least one case the Bush appointees destroyed the paper trail, so it couldn't be subpoenaed in a future legal challenge. Of course, the authors kept copies!
That sequence of events certainly raises your question "are we talking about intentionally disregarding the law -- knowing that your actions violate the law but doing something anyway -- rather than a legitimate disagreement about how to enforce "the law"?
On a less consequential item. We both know Obama will sneak out on to the Truman balcony when he feels the urge to pull a puff or two. That would be a twofer - first, he would not be breaking any law and second he wouldn't get his balls busted by Michelle - or even worse by Malia and Sasha. Bo would be the only witness and he ain't talkin'
(I kinda doubt the White House smoking bans have the status of law anyway)
Nice blogging with you!
Rock Harders
09-09-09, 20:55
Mongers,
I pretty much disagree with Sidney on everything politics; however, on the case of the GM and Chrysler bailouts (which is more economics) I see it his way. It is absolutely disgraceful that these piece of shit unsuccessful companies were kept afloat with taxpayer dollars. These companies should have been allowed to sink or swim just like every other corporation in the United States. Now, these losers will just fade into irrelevance and the US taxpayer is out over $100 billion. Nobody insisted on saving Pan Am, Eastern Airlines, Continental (2X) United, Delta, or US Airways when they went bankrupt. The better-run companies reorganized, modernized and soldiered on via their own volition through utilization of the bankruptcy code and the market. The losers (Pan Am and Eastern) slid away into the dustbin of history, which is exactly where they belonged, and is exactly where GM and Chrysler now belong.
Now look where we are at; only one viable domestic automaker (Ford) massive, irretrievable deficits, and a national currency that is dropping in value at supersonic speed with literally no bottom in sight. Buckle you seatbelts, it's going to get ALOT worse. I'm thinking $1.8 USD- 1 Euro or worse and near parity with the Brasilian Real (R$ 1.3- $1 USD)
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions, freezing out illegally the bondholders, firing the GM Chairman, and giving 35% to 50% of C to Fiat for nothing. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process. The ''gutless'' courts sanctioned it. -------Why would any investor ever buy a corporate bond in the future? -------------- Who will he target next?Not a single one of those bondholders is prepared to take him to court? Didn't realise they were such a bunch of wimps. Then you disagree with the courts' decision, therefore the President acted illegally?
Is that's all you have?
Stan Da Man
09-09-09, 21:22
Mongers-
I pretty much disagree with Sidney on everything politics; however, on the case of the GM and Chrysler bailouts (which is more economics) I see it his way. It is absolutely disgraceful that these piece of shit unsuccessful companies were kept afloat with taxpayer dollars. These companies should have been allowed to sink or swim just like every other corporation in the United States. Now, these losers will just fade into irrelevance and the US taxpayer is out over $100 billion. Nobody insisted on saving Pan Am, Eastern Airlines, Continental (2X) United, Delta, or US Airways when they went bankrupt. The better-run companies reorganized, modernized and soldiered on via their own volition through utilization of the bankruptcy code and the market. The losers (Pan Am and Eastern) slid away into the dustbin of history, which is exactly where they belonged, and is exactly where GM and Chrysler now belong.I couldn't agree with you more on this, Rock. My hunch, however, is that you and Sid don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, either. For my part, I agree with most of what Sidney has to say on economics. This may be the one issue (GM and Chrysler bailouts; cash for clunkers; etc. Where I would part company with him, but on most other economic issues he seems like a pretty astute guy. Plus, the GM and Chrysler stuff is more about politics than economics, anyway.
As to the GM and Chrysler bailouts, however, equal praise or blame (depending on how you look at it) needs to be ascribed. The bailout of those entities started on Bush II's watch and continued on Obama's. Where I would give Obama credit is in having the stomach to close the government's spigot and let them go BK.
From my uninformed perspective, we (the USA) suck at engineering cars. There are a whole host of reasons for that but, the sooner we realize that, the better. Indeed, the cash for clunkers program is a pretty good example of that. All of the top 10 clunkers traded in were American cars. Seven of the top 10 cars that were then purchased with clunker funds (by previous owners of American cars) were Japanese. But, now I risk resurrecting a tired old debate, so I'll shut up.
Mongers-
I pretty much disagree with Sidney on everything politics; however, on the case of the GM and Chrysler bailouts (which is more economics) I see it his way. It is absolutely disgraceful that these piece of shit unsuccessful companies were kept afloat with taxpayer dollars. These companies should have been allowed to sink or swim just like every other corporation in the United States. Now, these losers will just fade into irrelevance and the US taxpayer is out over $100 billion. Nobody insisted on saving Pan Am, Eastern Airlines, Continental (2X) United, Delta, or US Airways when they went bankrupt. The better-run companies reorganized, modernized and soldiered on via their own volition through utilization of the bankruptcy code and the market. The losers (Pan Am and Eastern) slid away into the dustbin of history, which is exactly where they belonged, and is exactly where GM and Chrysler now belong.
Now look where we are at; only one viable domestic automaker (Ford) massive, irretrievable deficits, and a national currency that is dropping in value at supersonic speed with literally no bottom in sight. Buckle you seatbelts, it's going to get ALOT worse. I'm thinking $1.8 USD- 1 Euro or worse and near parity with the Brasilian Real (R$ 1.3- $1 USD) Now here's where I agree with Sidney. Let them go bankrupt if no-one wants to buy their cars. And I agree with RH too; as for the dollar, long term it doesn't look good.
Now here's where I agree with Sidney. Let them go bankrupt if no-one wants to buy their cars. And I agree with RH too; as for the dollar, long term it doesn't look good.Just for the record, if Sidney said that, then I agree with him too.
A first on this particular thread.
BAILOUTS.
Come on guys. Do your homework! Here is the history of federal bailouts of private corporations and municipalities prior to Obama's Presidency. This didn't take long with a Google search!
Please note that since the government got into the business in the Nixon years, US taxpayer money pledged or spent on bailouts totaled $10 billion under the Democrats and $1,737.3 billion under the Republicans! Little wonder business loves the Party of business!
For kicks, I am delighted to note that President Reagan was the first President to "fire" top executives as a condition of the bank getting government assistance at the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company.
THE RECORD.
UNDER NIXON.
1970 - Penn Central - $3.2 Billion.
Penn Central Railroad, on the verge of bankruptcy, appealed to the Federal Reserve for aid. Nixon and the Fed supported them, but the Democratic Congress refused to go along. After Penn Central declared bankruptcy fearing a devastating ripple effect in money markets, the Fed provided reserves to cover the railroad's credit.
1971 Lockheed - $1.4 Billion.
Congress passed and Nixon signed the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, which could provide funds to any major business enterprise in crisis. Lockheed was the first recipient.
1974 - Franklin National Bank - $7.8 Billion.
After the bank lost $63.6 million over a few months, the Fed stepped in with loans.
UNDER FORD.
1975 - New York City - $9.4 Billion.
President Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, which released $2.3 billion in loans to the beleaguered city.
UNDER CARTER.
1980 Chrysler - $10 Billion.
The Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act provided $1.5 billion in loans to be matched by U. S. And foreign banks in order to rescue the troubled company from insolvency.
UNDER REAGAN.
1984 - Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company - $8.4 Billion.
Having bought $1 billion in bad loans from the failed Penn Square Bank of Oklahoma, Continental faced extinction. The FDIC and Fed, with Reagan's approval devised a plan to rescue the bank that included replacing the bank's top executives.
UNDER BUSH I.
1989 Savings & Loan - $293.3 Billion.
After the widespread failure of savings and loan institutions, President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.
UNDER BUSH II.
Fall 2001 US Airlines - $18.6 Billion.
After 9/11, Bush signed the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, that provided $5 billion in compensation and $10 billion in loan guarantees and credit to cover losses related to the terror attacks.
Fall 2008 Bear, Stearns - $30 Billion.
JP Morgan Chase and the Bush Treasury Department bailed out Bear Stearns which was about to collapse. The Fed provided a $30 billion credit line, so JP Morgan could buy the remnants.
Fall 2008 Fannie and Freddie - $400 Billion.
Bush and Congress authorized the emergency Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, so Fannie and Freddie could essentially be nationalized and the Treasury could invest billions to cover their losses.
Fall 2008 AIG - $180 Billion.
In four steps, the Bush Administration pumped a total of $180 billion into AIG to keep it from collapsing.
Fall 2008 - Auto Industry - $25 Billion.
In September 2008, Bush and Congress approved $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. Negotiations between the companies and Treasury could not be concluded before the end of the Bush term, so Obama inherited the issue.
Fall 2008 - Troubled Asset Relief Program - $700 Billion Available /$480 Billion Committed.
After Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson raised the threat of a global depression, Congress authorized $700 billion under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, for an alphabet soup of different new programs.
Fall 2008 - Citigroup $280 Billion.
In October and November, Bush gave Citigroup $45 billion in capital investment and government guarantees against losses from toxic assets, saying it was not a bailout, but funds to "bolster healthy banks" in tough times. The FDIC committed $10 billion more and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion.
SOURCE: ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.
When President Obama signs into law landmark reform legislation on health insurance? It will probably be sometime in December so a place with an outdoor patio and lots of eye candy would be nice!
OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."Vintage Obama, and he actually said it with a straight face. ROTFLMAO!
OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."More vintage Obama. Obviously his handlers have been watching the polling data, but they know that they can get around this with lax enforcment.
OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."Down from 45 million, and certainly a more accurate number, but should we be ripping apart the best current health system in the world that is currently serving 90% of our citizens? If your goal is wealth redistribution to benefit the remaining 10%, then the answer is "yes".
Jackson
The only good news is that I seriously doubt anything that Obomination does related to healthcare won't be quickly UNDONE by the next administration! My silent hope remains the same that Obomination continues his "good works" and quickly becomes one of the WORST one-term Presidents in US history. By my estimation he is ahead of schedule on this agenda and we only need to tolerate this clown for a few more years. Your point about about a system that works 90% of the time for 90% percent of the population (by LIBERAL estimates) is very well taken! Only health care professionals working in the current system really understand WHAT total BULLSHIT this whole non-insured issue really is! I have no reason to go into the details because it's just simply lost on the socialists. JUST A FEW MORE YEARS ALL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Rock Harders
09-10-09, 05:23
Jackson,
Do you oppose health care reform, or just any health care reform proposals being offered by Barack Obama and / or the Democratic majorities? Do you honestly believe that the current health care system is sustainable as is? I would argue that 9 out of 10 objective experts would agree that the current system is NOT sustainable and is in dire need of reform. If it were not for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries buying the congress for the past several decades, reform would have already happened. There needs to be a comprehensive public healthcare system to compete with and complement the private healthcare system already in place, just as there is in EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET. The United States has no problem sending hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, Colombia and others yet does not see it fit to provide a free / nominal cost public healthcare system to its own citizens who pay the taxes. Why are these motherfuckers in the middle east and other places getting my tax dollars while I have to pay $25,000 to treat my broken leg if I have to go to the hospital and I am uninsured? Why can I get my broken leg treated for free in Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Canada, UK, Ireland, Germany, France, etc and I have to pay $25,000 in my own country?
The answer to this is, of course, is the same answer to 99 out of every 100 questions: money. The US government is controlled by greedy avaricious vested interests in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries who do not want their profit margins being touched for the benefit of the citizenry. The US government is also controlled by greedy scumbag avaricious manufacturers of munitions and war materials who push for the US to send foreign aid to these countries so these countries can use that cash to buy munitions and war materials from the very companies who lobby for the aid in the first place. This is essentially transferring OUR wealth to the private manufacturers of bombs and body bags at the expense of not giving me free / nominal cost healthcare. If the US populace were not so incredibly ignorant, untraveled, uneducated, and caught up in watching Nascar they would demand public healthcare just as the citizens of EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRY ON THE PLANET have done.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Don't you wish, in 2003, Bush and the Republican Congress had refused to pass a plan that added "one dime" to the deficits then and into the future?
But they didn't. Instead Bush, Lott, Delay, et al, created the first big entitlement plan since LBJ was President.
The Republicans with control of the White House, the Senate and the House could do whatever they wanted. And what did they do, you ask?
They passed the $400 billion Medicaid Prescription Program without any way to pay for it.
Mind-fucking-boggling, as we say in Boston!
Looking back we know that fiscally irresponsible act is the major reason Medicare is in trouble.
Who would have thought with all their talk of conservative values, the Texas cowboys without a second thought would add $8.7 trillion to Medicare's $21 trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities. That's 42%!
I am sure that when you think of this your blood pressure spikes.
No way that you are ROTFLMAO now for sure!
This guys good.
You have to admit that.
Regards,
BM
Wild Walleye
09-10-09, 12:30
The Republicans with control of the White House, the Senate and the House could do whatever they wanted. And what did they do, you ask?
They passed the $400 billion Medicaid Prescription Program without any way to pay for it.
Mind-fucking-boggling, as we say in Boston!Absolutely right. Should never have been enacted. The Republicans did us all a disservice by abandoning the conservative principles of smaller government and less government in our lives.
Looking back we know that fiscally irresponsible act is the major reason Medicare is in trouble. I knew our harmony couldn't last. It wasn't meant to be. BUSH DID IT ALL!
He also killed Jimmy Hoffa and was on the Grassy Knoll and Van Jones was right about him too.
Come on, Medicare has been bankrupt for 20 years. It has never worked as promised and is financed based on redistribution.
Who would have thought with all their talk of conservative values, the Texas cowboys without a second thought would add $8.7 trillion to Medicare's $21 trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities. That's 42%!Must be Jesuit math. When you add 8.7 to 21 that equals 29.7. 8.7 is approximately 29% of 29.7.
But wait, if one accepts your 8.7 number (which I do not) and that the republicans added 29% to the unfunded liabilities, you just defeated your previous argument that it is all Bush's fault since he only added 29%.
I am sure that when you think of this your blood pressure spikes.
No way that you are ROTFLMAO now for sure!It has pissed me off for years so no spiking for me. Not ROTFLMAO, just bemused with you.
And I never said he did! And just because he was President in 2004, he isn't responsible for the Red Sox winning the World Series. (If he was I'd love him!
I don't say Bushie that coke snorting, Jack Daniels swilling, spoiled, two-faced frat boy (I sound like an Obama hater here) - must be held responsible for all that ails America - just for what he is responsible for.
His fiscal disasters pale, when measured against his handling of two wars. His bad policy decisions and inept execution put too many fine US troops, innocent Iraqis and Afghans in their graves or left them suffering from physical and psychic wounds that they will carry the rest of their lives - all to no good end. Add to the human suffering, the trillions we have spent and will be paying interest on for the next few decades. Now that I blame him for.
My math statement was clumsy (I should only do numbers in the light of day) The total unfunded Medicare liability is estimated at $21 trillion, $8.7 (42%) of which is a result of the Bush drug benefit. Sorry for the mix-up.
I cite the drug program and the fact that during five Republican presidencies a total of $1.7 trillion has been spent on bailing out private corporations versus a total of $10 billion under two Democrats to offer some useful fiscal history. It all started when Nixon got the US government in the bailout business.
I typically draw the AP readers to information on the role the Republicans have played in creating our serious and deep-rooted economic travails come from so as to counter the foolishness I read here about Obama - the evil socialist out to destroy America.
I don't insist people like Obama or that they just shut up. But the temper tantrums that characterize how his detractors attack him makes them look and sound deranged. (And some of them are!
You may be surprised I blame my friends on the Democratic side for many things, mostly for getting in bed with corporate interests almost across the board and helping to create the conditions that brought down the global economy.
Years of fiscal lunacy and the implosion of the US economy created the huge deficits now facing the US.
The recent $2 trillion dollar jump didn't fall out of Obama's overcoat on inauguration day. The deep recession that started under Bush accounts for about 37% of the $2 trillion swing. About 33% stems from Bush year tax cuts and the drug benefit, which dramatically increased interest payments on the national debt. While, 20% is the result of Obama extending Bush policies on bailouts and the two on-going wars. About 7% comes from the Obama's stimulus and tax cut bill. A mere 3% comes from Obama's domestic reform agenda. (These numbers are based on data from the non-partisan, respected CBO)
As for Medicare, it certainly needs adjustments to better reflect the shifting demographics and aging of the public. I am sure the actuarial tables used to establish spending projections missed the fact that medicine and life-style changes would make people live longer. More money will be needed. So?
Does a civilized society have a responsibility for its elderly? What's wrong with a little income redistribution to meet that responsibility?
Keep smiling! And pay your taxes!
A variety of polls of people interviewed before and after Obama's speech last night indicate that he shifted public opinion in his favor.
In one poll, after the speech, 67% said they supported the Obama health care proposals, compared with 53 percent in a survey days before the president spoke. About one in seven speech-watchers changed their minds and now like his plan.
Of course, those polls were among Americans who actually live in America and perhaps have a better idea of facts on the ground than those of us on AP who are watching things back home through our field glasses!
When some pharmaceutical company or medical interest group is spending millions of dollars on a media blitz telling me that that this or that is not good for me, red flags and alarm bells go off. My BS detector is on full alert. When in the sam-hell has any corporate elitist ever worried about my welfare or state of being? For me, this national health debate is more about corporations worried about loosing their control of the government. They are running scared and pulling out all the stops. Have no idea where all of this health care thing is going, but if the corporations win this round, the US is history. The middle class will be something in the past and they have been the secret to America's success: middle class. From every free trade treaty to this health care thing, the middle class take it in the shorts every time. Corporations are killing the host with their excesses and greed. Believe it or not, there is enough to go around for everyone.
Obama put his Presidency on the line last night and have to admire him for that. The man has balls. The irony of it being a black man taking on corporate America makes it even sweeter. "ROTFLMAO" watching them squirm.
Don't you wish, in 2003, Bush and the Republican Congress had refused to pass a plan that added "one dime" to the deficits then and into the future?
But they didn't. Instead Bush, Lott, Delay, et al, created the first big entitlement plan since LBJ was President.
The Republicans with control of the White House, the Senate and the House could do whatever they wanted. And what did they do, you ask?
They passed the $400 billion Medicaid Prescription Program without any way to pay for it.
Mind-fucking-boggling, as we say in Boston!
Looking back we know that fiscally irresponsible act is the major reason Medicare is in trouble.
Who would have thought with all their talk of conservative values, the Texas cowboys without a second thought would add $8.7 trillion to Medicare's $21 trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities. That's 42%!
I am sure that when you think of this your blood pressure spikes.
No way that you are ROTFLMAO now for sure!We have a thread for discussing American Politics during the Bush Presidency:
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2324
Nevertheless, I don't understand the logic behind citing a past governmental mistake as the justification for enacting a similar but larger mistake.
Thanks,
Jackson
Does a civilized society have a responsibility for its elderly?I would suggest that the responsibility lies first with the individual, and second with the family of the individual.
One thing for sure, it's not my responsibility, and I don't wish to be forced to pay for somebody elses fucking health care.
I have a suggestion for those of you who apparently suffer from guilt for having health insurance: Go out on the street, select a poor person of your choice, and buy them a health insurance policy.
In the mean time, keep your hands out of my pocket!
Thanks,
Jackson
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.
Stan Da Man
09-10-09, 18:35
So much drama here. One would think they raised the price of puta by ten pesos or something!
First, it's mildly amusing to hear everyone jump on the bandwagon of "unsustainability." The health care system is "unsustainable?" Piffle! Where did this notion come from? The health care system will be fine, and sustainable, without the government taking it over. It's the government takeover we should be concerned about -- and which most folks are concerned about. Undoubtedly, our health care system has warts, spots and blemishes. Every country's health care system does. So does our government. Heck, so do I. Well, the warts went away a few weeks ago with treatment, but the spots and blemishes show no sign of abating.
The idea that our system is not "sustainable" is not any more true than when it is applied to Germany and France. The same things have been said, many, many times, about their systems. Governments adjust and tinker with their public systems to bring them in line, as best they can, when they lurch too far one way or the other. Our private market system has been doing this for years and years. Folks have been saying that our system is broken and out of whack ever since (at least) the first tort lawyers stood up in front of a jury with punitive damages dollar signs in his eyes. You can argue that the system should cover more people and that corporate avarice and greed (same thing) mess up the current system. But, that doesn't make the system unsustainable.
Second, we've got both sides saying that the President put his job on the line with his speech. Double-piffle! He's got three and a half more years. He hardly put his Presidency on the line last night. He may be spending some political capital. But, there are going to be many more important issues than health care in the next three and a half years. Defeat on this issue for Obama would be a mere a bloody nose. As with HillaryCare, it didn't doom Clinton's Presidency, and this issue won't doom Obama. The good news is that, once it's defeated (hopefully) we can put all this claptrap behind us and move on to more important issues.
The most amusing comment of the night was uttered right at the beginning -- the notion that a government takeover of healthcare won't add a dime to the deficit. Right. After you're done picking every last dime out of my pocket, do you expect me to believe you're going to pass the hat amongst Democratic constituents? They're voters, after all, and you're politicians. No one is that gullible, are they?
I would suggest that the responsibility lies first with the individual, and second with the family of the individual.Jackson:
I really like your logic and the idea of people having to take personal responsibility for their problems. You shall get no argument from myself on that point. However, the price gouging and insane costs in medical services and prescriptions are becoming cost prohibitive for the average citizen. Why can a person go to a border town in Mexico and purchase their medication for about one-third of what it costs two blocks away in a U. S. Pharmacy? Why is there such a disparity in prices? Think the argument and debate with health care is more about correcting the insane pricing for medical goods and services. How can any responsible politician not question the disparity in pricing and permit it to continue?
Always the thoughtful conservative (though I take issue with him on certain things)
Stan you make a wise observation in reference to the health insurance system now under duress. You say:
"The idea that our system is not "sustainable" is not any more true than when it is applied to Germany and France. The same things have been said, many, many times, about their systems. Governments adjust and tinker with their public systems to bring them in line, as best they can, when they lurch too far one way or the other."
That is absolutely true and the underlying logic also applies to the arguments that Obama is creating deficits that are not "sustainable."
Deficit spending has gone on since Adam borrowed a few apple seeds from Eve. Read Roman history to learn how Caesar used deficit spending to fight his wars and create an Empire.
Remember the US ran deficits every year from FDR through Bush I. Then in Clinton years, "voila" - we had surpluses!
Obama and his successors will as you say "adjust and tinker" with taxes, and spending "to bring them in line, as best they can." The world economy will heal and future growth will produce replenished government coffers.
In honor of the release of the Beatles catalogue in remastered stereo, let me quote Paul "obladi oblada life goes on!" (I decided not to quote George - "There's one for you, nineteen for me! By the way, Yenny has the new discs in stock!
Stan Da Man
09-10-09, 19:24
Remember the US ran deficits every year from FDR through Bush I. Then in Clinton years, "voila" - we had surpluses!
Obama and his successors will as you say "adjust and tinker" with taxes, and spending "to bring them in line, as best they can." The world economy will heal and future growth will produce replenished government coffers.
In honor of the release of the Beatles catalogue in remastered stereo, let me quote Paul "obladi oblada life goes on!" (I decided not to quote George - "There's one for you, nineteen for me! By the way, Yenny has the new discs in stock!Ricardo:
I don't object to deficits per se. I object only to the extent that deficits are likely: (a) to one day seriously affect my tax bill; and / or (be) to bring the prospect of a seriously weakened dollar if the deficits are paid for by printing more money. That's a whole separate discussion. I have no problem with reasonable deficit spending, but I think we're pretty much past that point already.
I excerpted that quote only because it was one of the points where Obama engaged in too much rhetoric for me. I don't mind packaging. I admire the guy's ability to speak. Whatever one thinks of Bush II or Bush I for that matter, both Clinton and Obama are head and shoulders above both of them as orators. But, the ability to speak is just a small part of what makes a good President for me. When too much rhetorical flourish is used, I tend to discredit the rest of what the speaker has to say.
That said, I would contrast the speech he gave last night with the one he gave to school kids a day or two before. The latter was excellent, stripped of politics and I was glad he did it. Some objected that it was an effort at indoctrination. That's probably more sour grapes because they didn't think of it before. The fact that kids need to stay in school and take responsibility for their own success is a message kids need to hear, and the guy should be applauded for doing it. The only other criticism I heard was that the message should come from parents. Yes, it should, but there's no reason it shouldn't come from the President, as well.
I would side with Jackson on spending. I've said it before: Republicans lost me and the high ground when they stopped focusing on the bottom line. I can't swing to the left just because the guy's who used to be leading my side shot me in the back.
But, back to Clinton: A lot can be said about the guy, but he did run surpluses. I give him a lot of credit for not tinkering and meddling. Truthfully, I think that's harder for politicians than any of us non-politicians realize. They all want to leave a legacy.
Obama, on the other hand, has already promised his constituents that he won't raise their taxes, and he's invited them to look through my wallet to see what they can find there. That's where he lost me. Because of that, I'll spend part of my day looking for every legal mechanism I can find to minimize my tax bill. That time might be spent more productively on other things, but the handwriting is on the wall.
Sorry, but I was never a Beatles fan. To the extent I have to choose, I would go with the Stones. I think Jagger did a stint at the London School of Economics, so perhaps that explains it. Somehow, though, I doubt Mick is much of a conservative. I'll give the left some credit, they generally make better music. One can only listen to Ted Nugent so many times.
I don't remember anyone getting this angry in Congress when the President wanted to kill lots of Iraqis, but now that the President wants to save the lives of more Americans....'
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.Jackson, just curious what you think of Ron Paul?
I would like to consider myself Libertarian, but if our government is going to spend spend massive amounts of money, would rather see less corporate welfare (bailouts / wars / etc) in favor of things like affordable health care, etc.
The first topic could be who is the better businessman? Mick or Macca?
Mick, like JFK and George Soros, did a short stint at LSE. All three obviously picked up a few pointers.
Paul, a Liverpudlian, went to the century-old Liverpool Institute High School for Boys, an English grammar school with an excellent academic reputation.
Both Mick and Macca are considered as brilliant at business as they are with music.
I spent an hour with McCartney in New York a few years back and he is truly a regular bloke.
Like everyone they both got whacked in the current downturn. McCartney, even after paying his ex $40 million is worth three quarters of a billion. While, Jagger struggles along with only $300 million. Who said: "I Can't Get No Satisfaction"?
Maybe I should tell the over the top O detractors to "Let It Be" or "You Better Move On."
I would suggest that the responsibility lies first with the individual, and second with the family of the individual.
One thing for sure, it's not my responsibility, and I don't wish to be forced to pay for somebody elses fucking health care.
I have a suggestion for those of you who apparently suffer from guilt for having health insurance: Go out on the street, select a poor person of your choice, and buy them a health insurance policy.
In the mean time, keep your hands out of my pocket!That's a fundamental difference between you and I, and others that think like us. I am willing to help pay for a system where everyone has access to quality healthcare (without going bankrupt).
The responsibility lies first with the individual, and second with the family of the individual. It's not my responsibility. I don't wish to be forced to pay for somebody elses fucking health care.
I have a suggestion for those of you who apparently suffer from guilt for having health insurance:
Go out on the street, select a poor person of your choice, and buy them a health insurance policy. Keep your hands out of my pocket!People who happen to have compassion are not suffering from guilt. We were taught certain values by our parents and most of us have found those values have both merit and benefits - individual and societal.
When I commit an act of compassion I get all warm and fuzzy. I don't feel like somehow my guilt has been assuaged.
Have you ever read any Dickens?
People who happen to have compassion are not suffering from guilt. We were taught certain values by our parents and most of us have found those values have both merit and benefits - individual and societal.
When I commit an act of compassion I get all warm and fuzzy. I don't feel like somehow my guilt has been assuaged.
Have you ever read any Dickens?Ricardo, Esten, et. al.
Okay, then how about having some compassion for me by not forcing me to pay to further your moral ambitions?
Thanks,
Jackson
That's a fundamental difference between you and I, and others that think like us. I am willing to help pay for a system where everyone has access to quality healthcare (without going bankrupt)Okay, I understand that "you are willing to help pay" for providing health care for other people. So who is stopping you? Go find an unsured person and start paying for their health care.
In the mean time, please consider the selfishness of your demands that I and others should be forced to pay to support your moral agenda.
BTW, every single person in the country already has "access" the quality healthcare now. All they have to do is walk in the door of any emergency room in the country and they will receive medical treatment.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson quote:
"Every single person in the country already has "access" the quality healthcare now. All they have to do is walk in the door of any emergency room in the country and they will receive medical treatment."
That statement is absolutely, demonstrably, irrefutably and absurdly false.
Every day, all across the US, hospitals turn away people needing serious medical treatment by the thousands unless they have insurance coverage. Terminal cancer, as just one example, is not treated in emergency rooms.
The definition of an "emergency" varies hospital to hospital. In most cases, unless it is evident visually or otherwise that a person is in or close to a life threatening situation may not get treated or even evaluated.
The "Access" that is available in "any emergency room" hardly qualifies as "quality" at every facility and is limited to very narrow definitions of what constitutes an emergency. In addition, if an emergency patients arrives at the wrong time on a busy night, a quiet death in the hospital corridor is distinct possibility.
If what you say was true, the major cause of individual bankruptcies in the US, would not be the huge medical bills that people - including those with insurance - can't pay and that their insurance carriers have refused to pay citing some technicality. These people are forced to file for Chapter 13 protection for the crime of having gotten sick and believing, in error, that paying their premiums every month meant they had insurance.
Every day, all across the US, families, including those with insurance, have to make wrenching decisions about essential health care that is too expensive (and not provided in emergency rooms as you infer) Those decisions can mean death sentences.
If you think that system is fine, bully for you!
A new poll of Americans 45 and over, conducted by AARP, shows Obama's speech to Congress has totally altered the health care reform landscape. Now, changing the current system is supported by a majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
A large majority (76%) of all Americans say healthcare reform should be a priority this year. This includes 56% of Republicans, 70% of Independents and almost all Democrats.
So much for 90% of the people being happy with their insurance plans!
Overall 68% of Americans support the President's approach, including 63% of independents, and even 43% of Republicans. Nearly seven in ten of those who agreed that Obama had addressed their questions and concerns in his comments now support the Obama proposals.
As I read this I can't help but ROTFLMAO!
But if nominated I will not run and if elected I will not serve. I like BA too much. My hope is to track down Governor Sanford's ex. Talk about gorgeous! And I bet she like politics, as well as older guys!
Thanks Ricardo,
Sidney has now been relegated to one line posts. He got tooled. Congrats. I truly enjoy watching this exercise in futility. Keep it up, pure logic usually makes alot more sense than bile.
Best Regards,
BM.
Health Care Reform FTW!
You know, I watch everyone talking here about how the majority of the people in the States believe their insurance is fine. I see everyone talking about how reform is necessary. I see the latest comments made how the majority of people agree with Obama's approach. Who knows what the truth is because polls can be slanted to produce results that are needed for those doing the polls.
I have to say - why don't we talk about why we need insurance to begin with if we are truly going to reform the system and bring costs down? Why can't we all get together and figure out ways to make people responsible for their own lives? Why do we have to bring the government in to "make it all better?"
I am a Libertarian. I would have preferred to see Ron Paul in office rather than anyone else who ran.
I consider our two-party system to be corrupted beyond repair because the two viewpoints offered really don't offer a means to supply the best government any more. It is too riddled with those who are seeking power and money and with those (on BOTH sides) who simply want to force us to live they way they think we should live. I'm not saying that the parliamentary system, for example, is any better as a whole, and I don't have a solution to offer, but that is just an opinion of mine.
But related to healthcare, I believe the public has been hoodwinked into thinking that the only way to have healthcare is to have health insurance. It may be necessary in a system that is non-functioning, over-priced and full of fraud. But in a system that operates under normal market conditions, would it have to be so necessary to have insurance for standard everyday healthcare?
I think that we will end up with whatever "reform" that the Democrats think we need. I have lost faith in the Republican party a long time ago as I watched them mount deficits as high as any "tax and spend Democrat." But it doesn't matter, because I feel that neither party will really "reform" healthcare, but rather make half-assed decisions that can be made under our system and will only end up making things worse over the long haul. Again, my opinion. Whatever, it all results in the same thing - the government is going to tax those who have money to pay for things for people who don't have money. We all have our own opinions as to why those who don't have money are lacking in a system where opportunities really are available for those who work for it.
But back to why do we need insurance? If costs were reasonable, could we not have, for example, catastrophic insurance to take care of big things? Could we not learn to live healthier and take preventive steps to keep us in reasonable health instead of paying outrageous sums of money so that we can feel good about going to the doctor with a small or non-existent co-pay and a small deductible that has to be met?
Big healthcare items are very much a concern, and for the most part for the older people more so for the younger. For the most, part, I believe older people able to pay higher premiums than younger, and they are the ones who should have to - they are the ones who are going to use more of the system. They are also the ones who have lived longer and hve had time to accumulate money - if they have worked for it.
I support three kids from a previous marriage and one of the things I am forced to do by state law under my divorce is to provide health coverage for my kids, even though when I was married and we all lived together I didn't have health insurance (BY CHOICE) for most of our time together. That is interference in how I choose to live my life, and it is unneccessary.
My kids ate correctly. My kids exercised. My kids rarely went to the doctor, even when they were sick, because most illnesses simply do not require any kind of care other than what parents know how to give anyway.
We always went to a small clinic near us for everyday needs when they happened. There is a time to bring a kid in to see the doctor when they don't get well after a few days, or spike a fever, etc. But I know MANY people who will go to the doctor the first sign of a stuffy nose. Why? Because they only have a $20 co-pay to go see the doctor, free prescriptions, and a very low deductible. Sometimes they go to fill the deductible for crying out loud, so that later they won't have to pay. Never mind that they are paying $800 or more per month for this "low cost." Or that the companies for which they work are suffereing under the burden of haivng to pay part or all of it.
We had all of our children WITHOUT insurance, in natural childbirth, with a midwife. The cost was around $900 back then, with payment plans available during the pregnancy, extending on afterwards. I'm sure it's more expensive now, but hey, people make more too. But now, you go into a hospital to have a kid and the costs are OUTRAGEOUS just for a "regular" childbirth, including epidermal anesthesia and all. And the incidence of Caeserian births have been shown to be MUCH greater than they should be in hospitals.
Government, in my opinion, should be small and provide a framework for all to function within. When you start having a government that thinks it needs to provide everything and control everything, you lose the freedoms for which we originally fought against England and the colonial system, and invite a dictatorship by the people, against the people.
So what could we do? The AMA has too much power and say over how medicine is practiced. The insurance companies are riddle with fraudlent claims. The court system ends up giving way too much money as reparations to people who are the recipients of true accidents or even normal events that are twisted in court to appear to be someone's "fault." There are many more that we could all talk about, I'm sure, and how these items affect costs such as malpractice insurance and the overhead costs of things.
How exactly does Obama's plans address these much more (to me) important items of true reform? First, I don't think anyone really knows except a few because the plan seems to be very vague and shifting all the time. Second, putting a public option to provide so-called competition to the private insurance companies is a laugh because there is no way ANY government organization can do things cheaper than a privately-run organization unless it is somehow subsidized by the government.
What I object to in all of this is that the American people are giving more and more power to the Federal government every freaking year so they can be more comfortable, work less, and enjoy a higher standard of living. This is unsustainable over time because an economy must depend on its productivity to be successful and getting the government involved at every level of society as we are seeing happen makes things less productive rather than more so.
How many of you who are saying things like "there are too many poor in the US", "there is not good enough medical care in the US for the poor and those who want it" have been to really poor places in this world and seen what true poverty is?
I'm not talking, for example, coming to Argentina and spending time in Recoleta and other places in the city that gringos usually visit. I'm talking about "out in the province" or even other places in the city, where the poor people live in little one room pensiones for 500 pesos a month, with no ventilation and a hot plate to cook their food on, a shared bathroom down the hall. Places where they are living in shacks that can't keep out the cold in the winter, where they are drawing their water from a well and have bare wires supplying their electricity - when they have electricity. I've seen some really horrible stuff out where I live, but I've seen even worse in places like Paraguay.
Look at the economic system in the States and compare our poor with the poor in other parts of the world where the government tries to intervene a lot and control how things are done. It seems very obvious to me that the systems with more freedom have more wealth for EVERYONE than the others I have described.
Raise the economic status of everyone and everyone is living better. Provide opportunites for everyone, and it is the choice of the individual as to how much work they do, how much education they achieve, how much money they earn, as opposed to places where things are controlled to the point where the common line for everyone is much lower.
All of this comes down to, in my opinion, "fix what's broken but keep the government hands out of that where it does not belong." But I guess in the long run, the Federalists won out and we are now faced with a behemoth that cannot not, under its own momentum, allow variety (I think competition among States would have been much better, personally) and will end up soffocating American business and its economy just as what happens in places like Argentina.
Sidney,
You've finally convinced me. You wouldn't know what an ''extreme liberal left mind" was if it came up and kicked you in the balls. I think the words you're looking for in this context are "slightly left of centre". If you want to find real "extreme liberal left" thinking, you should get out more.
When Obama took office the global economy was a few financial missteps away from a 1930s like depression. Interest rates everywhere were already near zero, but credit or spending were frozen. EVERY leader of EVERY government around the world - right, left and center - used the only tool available to stave off catastrophe temporarily pumping government money into the economy to replace the individual and corporate spending that had evaporated. This was terrible according to the anti-government intervention crowd who never offered an alternative.
HERE IS AN INAUGURAL ADDRESS I ASSUME SIDNEY AND HIS FREE MARKET EVANGELISTS BRETHREN WOULD HAVE PREFERRED OBAMA TO DELIVER:
"My fellow Americans, hey, I'm really sorry, and I know a lot of you will be upset when I tell you this, but it's time for a good, old global depression.
We need to wring out of the system, all of the debt that the financial institutions lent you over the last fifteen years. Now we can see that they shouldn't have and you shouldn't have borrowed it. But we can't cry over spilt milk.
Let's face facts, free market capitalism has it's good points and it's bad it's good times like we all just enjoyed and its bad times like we are about to suffer big time.
The economists call it "creative destruction." They do have a way with words, don't they.
You know, I'd like to do what every other country is doing right now and have our government step in temporarily to pick up the slack. We could deficit spend for a while, until we can stabilize the crisis. Then we can do what's needed to get back to a growth economy that can bring down and eventually eliminate the debt we need to carry for a while. We did it before. My fellow government heads in every country agree with me that we can do it again.
But those countries don't have Rush, Sean, Billo, Glenn and Fox News to deal with. I do and I don't want to spend the next four years being called a socialist. It would really piss me off. So screw it.
I'll just do what John McCain and Sarah Palin demand and give more billions to the banks and Wall Street, cut taxes for everyone making more than $250k and gut all those social welfare programs that help people.
I call it the YAOYO Ownership Plan or "The You Are On Your Own Ownership Society."
I won't cut defense spending and we will continue to be the world's policeman. Actually we may have to increase that spending due to the fact that our depression will soon spread across the globe. That will create serious social unrest just about everywhere and we will do what Americans always do throw our weight around, bring stability to foreign lands and show people who's boss!
If that leads to a few wars, remember wars can be good ways out of a depression, as long as they are World Wars and last long enough.
In a similar vein, we made need to spend more on jails as some people when they lose everything turn to crime. Prisons are God's way of protecting economic freedom.
Now cutting taxes will push the deficit through the roof and cutting social welfare programs will mean people will suffer and die in the streets, but the free market will fix that over time perhaps a very long time, but them's the breaks I guess.
On the up side, our very rich people are still going to be very rich. With more tax cuts we can make then even richer. They are symbols of what makes capitalism great and I salute them.
I know from my childhood that living in poverty is not much fun. But you may have to get used to it. You may find out its not so bad.
This depression is going to run anywhere from five to fifteen years and I can't predict what things will look when it's over. So just suck it up.
After today's parade I will take a few weeks off. If people want a smaller government, so be it. As President I only do big stuff, so if I disappear for a while what's the problem?
God bless America and here's hoping most of you come out of this in one piece.
Michelle, Malia and Sacha, we're outa here!"
Anyone who knows me, knows I am neither extreme nor a liberal. I am not dogmatic, I don't share your crutch.
''Tooled''! In your extreme liberal left mind!People on the forum have been asking you that very same question for years. I think Miami Bob was one of the most recent. Look back in this thread 70% of the posts are yours.
Why waste the verbage and time?And for the record, you did get tooled.
Regards,
BM
Okay, I understand that "you are willing to help pay" for providing health care for other people. So who is stopping you? Go find an unsured person and start paying for their health care.
In the mean time, please consider the selfishness of your demands that I and others should be forced to pay to support your moral agenda.
BTW, every single person in the country already has "access" the quality healthcare now. All they have to do is walk in the door of any emergency room in the country and they will receive medical treatment.If it was possible/practical to run a system where people pay just for the services they want, and most people got the services they wanted, this might be do-able. But it isn't. Some things are just too big and expensive and important to not be funded by a means that ensures their continuity (i.e. broad taxes). This includes things such as defense, emergency response, public safety, education, health, income security, etc. And many people believe the "health" bucket should include affordable access for everyone. I doubt many feel selfish about requiring others to pay for this who don't want to. More likely, we consider those with views like yours to be selfish for not wanting to support the provision of a basic human need like health. Important in this however, is that what each individual pays to support these basic services be assessed relative to their income and ability to pay.
Thanks Ricardo for pointing out the huge, gaping error in Jackson's statement on access.
Sydney,
Upon reflection, I think its probably cultural differences that play a part here. Being european, I've had experience of the real far left, a part of the political spectrum that I doubt exists in the USA. For us Obama is pretty much in the centre, and Cheney and his ilk, of the far-right. But anyway, thanks for saving us from those long and boring cut and paste jobs.
I did go back and read all 50 pages of this thread and I skimmed the thread on W's time. I stand corrected. Sidney, you were no fan of the Bush / Greenspan regime that put us into the soup. Apologies.
I don't advise following my example to any one over 45 that hasn't met with a "death panel" bureaucrat and prepared an advance directive.
My friend, Sidney, your hard-on for Obama is a thing to behold. It seems that Bush never excited you quite as much. If you can stay that erect with the chicas, I bet they all call you "el gringo siempre rνgido!" You sure have been "tooling" poor Barack and his Obamanation (or the Promised Land as I call it!
The argument I have with Jackson, Sidney and others on this post is not really personal, despite the occasional hyperbole. It is not a new argument. I have been having it with friends and detractors since high school. I bet the same goes for Jackson and Sidney.
It's really not about Obama or George W or health care or deficit spending. It's about something more fundamental.
As JFK would say, it's an argument "as old as the scriptures." It's about how we view as humans how we interact with other humans we share the earth with.
According to ancient Jewish rabbinical scholars: "There are four types of people. The one who says: What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. This is the common type, but there are some who say that this is the type of Sodom. What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine this is a boor. What is mine is yours a saint. What is yours is mine a villain."
I am not going to accuse Jackson and Sidney of being Sodomites (at least in this context) but they do fall into the first category.
I don't claim sainthood for my fellow left-leaning liberals, and myself but we do fall into the third. We say a portion of what is mine is yours and a progressive tax system offers an efficient way for that exchange to be made.
Because we start from different premises, we read history differently, we view facts differently, we disagree even on what some facts are, we come to different conclusions when we study the same information.
What is unfortunate is that, especially in today's supercharged political environment, rather than chalk up other's different views to legitimate differences in how each of us sees the world, name-calling becomes the default weapon in debates. I am "indoctrinated" "extreme" "socialist" "guilty" "moral' (as a criticism! And best of all "dogmatic." Now we know neither Jackson nor Sid is in any way dogmatic!
I will admit sometimes I find things others say are stupid in my view, but I don't say that makes them stupid. I say my share of stupid things (as well as some that are brilliant - don't you think)
The only name I will call those who see things differently is "people who see things differently" and who I think are often wrong.
Wrong not stupid - not immoral or amoral - and not evil.
Name-calling is non-productive and often a dodge when someone can't marshall a good defense of their views or a convincing critique of the other side. But what it really is is lazy!
Let's stick with real things if we are going to continue this exchange.
Thanks Ricardo for pointing out the huge, gaping error in Jackson's statement on access.Don't get too congratulatory, I was only baiting him.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson - get out your wallet!Ricardo, Esten, etc.
I'm still trying to understand what moral authority do you use to justify forcing me to pay for medical care for other people?
Please don't try to use the "common good" argument. Obviously we need to pay taxes to provide for a common defense, a justice system, even public education because we all benefit from an educated population, but another person's personal health care just doesn't qualify, except, of course, in a socialist / communist society.
The fact is that food, clothing, shelter, and medical care are personal responsibilities.
Like I said before, if "you are willing to help pay" for providing health care for other people, the go find an unsured person and start paying for their health care.
Thanks,
Jackson
======================================
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Karl Marx, 1875
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.
We know that you are proudly descended from the "Fuck you. I'm Alright Jack" segment of the population which dates back to the days soon after Adam and Eve fought over who ate the biggest slice of the apple. We respect your place as the local poster boy for the "what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" model spoken of in the ancient rabbinical scriptures.
The scriptures pre-date the emergence of democracy. An elemental feature of democracy is that citizens, by willingly agreeing to live in such a system, thereby agree to collectively support government-set limits on certain individual behavior, as well as a level of government involvement in the day to day functioning of the economy. Elected representatives, chosen by the majority of voters, establish the nature, range and level of involvement and limits. The Constitution puts some limits on those parameters so as to protect both universal rights, as well as the rights of minorities.
From its earliest days, the majority of US citizens have agreed that as a Christian nation certain moral and ethical nostrums needed to be reflected in its collective life. The historical fact is that the citizens of a free country created this approach - of their free will - in the full light of day - under no duress - not looking down the barrel of a gun - not because they were brainwashed - they just thought it was the right, just and yes moral way to live.
This led over time to the government taking on - in limited fashion - to collectively provide "food, clothing, shelter, and medical care" to segments of the population. They have debated and disagreed on the extent of sharing of national resources, but a very, very small minority have fought to bring the whole structure down. You may not like it. But that's the history and them's the breaks.
Unfortunately for me, the Constitution doesn't exempt me, or anyone else, from paying taxes for national defense expenditures I find anything but a "public good" including foolish wars, weapons systems that don't work but make the manufacturers rich and armaments donated to dictatorial regimes around the globe, among other things.
Unfortunately for you, the Constitution doesn't exempt you, or anyone else, from paying taxes to provide for things the majority determines are "public goods" that you dislike.
In a Jackson dictatorship it might be a "fact" that "food, clothing, shelter, and medical care are personal responsibilities." But the US is not Jackson Land. Hell you don't even live there.
Can I assume you took the advice "love it or leave it" when it began to go a little too far left for you (or was it the irritating women) If it was at all about anything other than pussy, funny how you ended up here.
I would guess one of the things that makes it easier for you to get out of bed in the morning and have to read the latest about CFK and Nestor doing their thing, is the ease with which you can avoid paying any taxes - even those needed for those things you say we "obviously need" like Argentina's "defense, justice system and public education."
Now I don't assume you actually do anything illegal to avoid AFIP, I just think you might like the idea that you could if you were another type of person.
Maybe we can work a deal - you pay my share of the national defense budget including the interest carried for past spending and I'll enroll one of the ladies from Madahos in OSDE!
My comments on Obama have always been very measured. As are my opinions about him. Your memory is flawed.
lol @ Castro, Chavez, Ortega, the USSR and Red China being liberal. You got some jokes today.
Regards,
BM
We remember your many posts of the past that extolled the virtues of very liberal, left positions and idols = Castro, Chavez, Ortega, Correa, Morales, USSR, Red China, and Obama. Welcome to the Center!
The fact is that food, clothing, shelter, and medical care are personal responsibilities.I agree with that statement. We all need to take responsibility for our lives. And most of the time, most people are able to find a way to meet these basic needs. The operative word being "most".
There are times when, despite our best efforts and intentions, some people find themselves in situations where all these needs cannot be met, and must choose between them (or go broke in the process). My (and others) vision of a developed country is one in which these basic needs are provided for all individuals. No one should starve, go without clothing or shelter, or be denied medical attention to keep them in good health. Obviously there is potential for abuse, so such a system has to be structured very carefully to encourage individual responsibility and minimize abuse.
About "moral authority", when you live in a society with other people you are not going to be able to have it your way all the time. If enough people assign enough importance and value to something, and it ends up affecting you (e.g. via taxes) you may be required to do or pay for something you don't agree with.
...when you live in a society with other people you are not going to be able to have it your way all the time. If enough people assign enough importance and value to something, and it ends up affecting you (e. G. Via taxes) you may be required to do or pay for something you don't agree with.No, that's not true.
"Democracy is not nine wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."
Just because you have the numbers doesn't mean that you have the moral authority to take from me and give to others that you have determined are more "deserving".
Thanks,
Jackson
Your "moral authority" cow left the barn a long time ago. Maybe the nine wolves ate the cow.
You may not think it's "moral" but your government has the constitutional "authority" to take money from you and give to others - deserving or not.
In 1862, under Republican President Lincoln, the federal income tax was first authorized to fund the civil war and then in 1909, under Republican President Taft, the 16th Amendment established the constitutionally of it.
Ain't it kinda surprising that Lincoln and Taft - those socialist SOBs - are the guilty pricks that let Bush pick my pocket and Obama pick yours!
Looks like at the end of the day the best that can be said is "tough shit!"
In 1862, under Republican President Lincoln, the federal income tax was first authorized to fund the civil war and then in 1909, under Republican President Taft, the 16th Amendment established the constitutionally of it.
Ain't it kinda surprising that Lincoln and Taft - those socialist SOBs - are the guilty pricks that let Bush pick my pocket and Obama pick yours!
Looks like at the end of the day the best that can be said is "tough shit!"No Ricardo, what is not surprising is that both Lincoln and Taft were shot to death, probably by angry taxpayers and not secessionists in Abe's case! LOL
[/i]Just because you have the numbers doesn't mean that you have the moral authority to take from me and give to others that you have determined are more "deserving".
Thanks,
JacksonI agree with your opinion that they may not have the moral authority to do x number of things, but unfortunately and according to some theorists of politics we citizens of so called republics and democracies have made a social contract between us and our government. For their "protection" we give them part of our liberty and allow them to act in our "best interest".
Law making, taxes, contributions and law enforcement are part of the rights that we or our ancestors decided to give away to our governments (or maybe not but the bastards took the rights anyway, so it is fait acompli)
As you can see -sadly- moral is one of the least important issues when it comes to politics, which by the way is a practical profession where -unfortunately- most of times morality does not count.
As Ronald Reagan used to say Politics is the second oldest profession but it resembles very much to the first.
Taft after serving as President went on to become the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court. At 72 years old, he died of old age - not at the hand of an assassin.
John Wilkes Booth's murder of Lincoln had zilch to do with taxes.
Booth and his co-conspirators hatched a plan to kill Lincoln, VP Johnson, and Secretary of State Seward to help the Confederacy. Although Lee had already surrendered to the North, Booth and his crew refused to accept that the war was over.
They went ahead with their sick scheme and guaranteed that wounds of the Civil War never healed - even up to today among a lot of Southerners - many of whom resent the fact that Obama is President and the US has a black family living in the White House.
1. Capitalism attracts capital investment and profits. 2. Socialism attracts no capital investment. Profits decline. In fact capital ''flees'' Socialism seeking better ROI! ------Simply, the USA is fucked under the Obomination!Hi Professor,
Can you tell me what your definition of a socialist government is? And what countries, you consider to be socialist?
Assuming your definition of socialism will encompass the US, please enlighten us at to exactly when the country went socialist.
You case will be credible if you give a few examples of Presidents who led the nation astray, what major policies they imposed on an unwilling population that you consider socialist, whether and how they got away with subverting the laws and their political affiliation.
Just a few examples will do. However, if you single out Obama you will not be credible, as there is precedent for virtually every initiative he has pursued since he entered the White House.
I doubt you will claim- even under Obama - that it is a completely socialist country, so maybe you can rank it on a scale of 1 to 10.
The readers here seem to be interested in learning from the rigor of your thought processes. And at least I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you are one off those boring people, who just throw out silly slogans with nothing to back them up.
Wild Walleye
09-14-09, 16:14
If you are a liberal you always need to reinforce the fact you are always right (even when you're wrong) and anyone that opposes your view does so due to a deep personal flaw (racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc) and not out any intellectual approach to the issues. You need to do this subtly and overtly from time to time. Don't forgo the opportunity to toss in non sequiturs reinforcing these 'truisms."
It goes like this: 'opposition to [insert liberal cause here] reminds me of [site completely unrelated historical incident of racism, bigotry, etc].
They went ahead with their sick scheme and guaranteed that wounds of the Civil War never healed - even up to today among a lot of Southerners - many of whom resent the fact that Obama is President and the US has a black family living in the White House.If you are white and you oppose Obama, you are a racists. If you are black, hispanic or of other non-white ancestry and you oppose Obama, you are a race-traitor.
Blah, blah, blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Next you'll be telling us that the Rep from SC was accusing BHO of being uppity.
Haven't read this board for about a week, but it appears, after a rapid skimming, this board has been very active.
Just to piss certain people off, I read a headline saying that 'Obama warns Wall Street against ΄ωnchecked excesses'
That is a hot one. I think Obama should consider government's "unchecked excesses"
Obama's next advice might be 'War is Peace' , 'Freedom is Slavery' and 'Ignorance is Strength'
Somebody please send Obama a copy of George Orwell's 1984, because that is where Obama is taking us.
Nothing in my question to Sid said I am right and he is wrong. How can the post readers know which of us is right or wrong, if we don't explain what we mean?
And now Sid has issued his decree - HE IS RIGHT - and anyone with the temerity to doubt him can fuck off! Then he takes the old coward's dodge (sorry pal) Having made an accusation, he refuses to defend it with any specificity, but demands I do his homework for him and write an exegesis on socialism. Nice try, amigo!
All I can do with his royal pronouncement (to quote Jackson) is ROTFLMAO!
Wild man, I admit that I very much appreciate clear thinking, clearly stated. Given the public and private comments to my postings, so do many others who write here! Many people write with open minds, who obviously enjoy kicking ideas around trying to better understand the world they live in.
I hardly give a fuck about the motivations or prejudices of my critics, even as I might speculate to myself, because those characteristics are pretty immutable. I just am often disappointed how shallow their attacks can be.
I also can take a verbal punch. Prove me wrong and my masculinity stays in tact. I have acknowledged errors here in the past.
Have a nice day and enjoy the improving weather.
Welcome back Alamo. How are things with your broker?
If you are a liberal you always need to reinforce the fact you are always right (even when you're wrong) and anyone that opposes your view does so due to a deep personal flaw.Of course this never applies to the far right conservatives that post on this board.
I'll comment.So, here ya go professor.
China? Definitely attracts a lot of investment. So, not socialist.
Argentina? Not a lot of investment attracted there. I will say yes, socialist.
USA? Lots of investment. Not socialist.
France? The bastion of socialism. But they seem to have investment. I will say not socialist.
Sweden? No clue.
North Korea? No investment there. So socialist.
So, let me know how I did. I hope I get an A.
Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. Source: CIA World Factbook.
The country has been considered as a perfect example of an economically prosperous democratic society with an equitable distribution of wealth, generous social benefits, and an enviable living standard for the majority of the population. Although the country encountered some economic difficulties in the early 1990s, by 1995 it was still second only to Switzerland in terms of its GDP per capita, and by the end of the decade it was growing faster than most of western Europe. Source: www.nationsencyclopedia.com
Not a selective choice of sources, just the first two that came up on an internet search. Not sure if the country meets Sydney's criteria of socialism, but the Swedes I know seem pretty happy. But on the other hand...'equitable distribution of wealth, generous social benefits'... Has to be a nightmare living in that country.
Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. Source: CIA World Factbook.SteveC, no offense, but spare me your facts and figures. I am waiting for my corrections from professor Syd.
Professor Sidney and all interested students:
As you try to put the spotlight on where that evil socialism is stunting investment, destroying any hope of economic growth, putting handcuffs of individual financial freedom and threatening life as we know it, here is a link to a study that will give you some facts.
These "facts" are a bit better documented, than what has been offered to date by Sid, Jackson and company.
The timely and comprehensive study was prepared by the highly respected Economist Intelligence Unit together with the Columbia University Program on International Investment.
Here's the link:
http://www.vcc.columbia.edu/pubs/documents/WorldInvestmentProspectsto2011.pdf
I have little doubt you will find it illuminating.
Now start your engines, do your homework, read, absorb and adjust your thinking accordingly.
And if you are so inspired, feel free to issue an apology to Obama!
Ricardo, you and SteveC are giving me a fucking headache.
All of this reading and reinterpretation of political positions and world views is for pussies anyway.
We need a binary algorithm for this stuff. So please provide something similar to Professors Syd's world view generator if you want me to listen to you.
NOT investment THEN socialism.
Investment THEN capitalism.
Soclalism == bad.
NOT socialism == good.
See how easy that is.
He probably can get you something for the headaches and at least you can get a good burger!
China is a dictatorship. AR is a wanna be K dictatoship. USA is turning hard left. France? Sweden? No clue? North Korea is a dictatorship.---- Two right, two wrong, and 3 ok. Son, you need more homework, less chica time, and fewer beer nights with the boys! I may recommend that you be expelled from Harvard!Sidney, all kidding aside, do your REAAAAALY believe Obama is a socialist?
He is a politician and has already shown himself, despite the rhetoric, to be a tool of big business. If by "socialist" you mean proponent of a corporate welfare state, then I agree with you 100%.
When the US budget runs into TRILLION dollar deficits, it generally isn't because the money is going to welfare moms, NEA grants, and god forbid, education and healthcare. It is going to Wall Street, the nebulous Military Industrial Complex, and probably in the next year or so, the healthcare industry. (We can start another thread on California's budget woes and the prison industrial complex if you want.
That's how I see it. I would rather it go to NEA grants, education, and, god forbid, health care. If that is liberal to you, then yes, I am a flaming pinko commie who was brainwashed from living in SF for 11 years. My red state relatives already think that, one more ain't gonna hurt.
My point is, the govt is going to spend the money anyway, why can't it be for something less destructive and more humane?
I wonder who is working at Cocodrilo tonight.
On your economic short-hand profiles, I won't go country-by-country other than to the China conundrum.
When I was in Beijing last year, on a deal that my partners backed out of, I saw a much different country from the one I knew from prior trips in mid-1970s and late 1980s.
You are right, it is not socialist, nor is it communist, nor is it capitalist. In economic terms it a unique, new hybrid. In political terms it is a corrupt dictatorship with a bizarre mix of private and public investment. In regard to business ethics they could be Argentines.
Still, if I were you though, I wouldn't be so quick to bet against them. Right now with their enormous foreign reserves they offer the best hope available to restart global growth. Ironic isn't it, the best hope for capitalism is the land of Mao!
(As an aside, you know dictatorships can be capitalist, as long as the means of production are left in private hands.
On the Obama front, I regret to inform you that one thing we studied, when I worked on the Watergate Committee back in 1973 and 74, was what were legitimate grounds for impeachment. Sorry, but turning hard left is not an impeachable offense, neither is turning hard right (or Cheney would have been done in) and thankfully neither is getting your dick sucked.
Looking back to that time, if I had only known, the country could have saved lots of time and money, if I had sent you the goods on Tricky Dick and convinced you to publically "demand" his resignation or impeachment. He would have slinked back to Yorba Linda pronto.
Now watch your back though, my sources tell me when Rahm Emanuel heard you might get into the "demand" business over his boss, he contacted some ex-Blackwater guys down here - hanging with CFK - to keep an eye on you!
Be cautious but try not to get any more paranoid!
Extended the embargo on Cuba for another year.
Sidney to provide details of further socialist measures.
My buddy don't kid yourself. My support for Obama is no more a function of a dysfunctional brain than your fear of him is. I do fear the US is fucked, but not due to the smart guy who is trying to fix it before it falls off the edge.
The greatest danger isn't liberalism run amuck, The fall of the US will more likely come as a result of corporatism that no longer serves its shareholders and out-of-control financial behemoths. The Masters of the Universe still play their games that they don't even understand with manipulations and machinations that have turned the markets into anything but credible guides to the functioning of the real economy.
Wall Street is a casino and like ther counterparts in Macau and Vegas and the old Mafia captains, the casino management skims huge personal profits from the house take every day, because no one can really stop them.
You are too smart not to recognize a scam when you see one.
On the unholy trio, W, Tricky Dick and Dickhead Cheney, I said turning hard right was specifically NOT an impeachable offense (same as turning hard left) so Bush and Cheney skate.
Nixon was a fucking law breaker plain and simple - as confessed to in open court by his co-conspirators and detailed (even with the missing 18 minutes) in verbatim tapes of him talking like the Don in the Oval Office.
Do you think suborning perjury, laundering cash to be funneled to accused felons in jail to buy silence, ordering breaking and entering into the offices of your political opponents and on and on were not crimes?
If you do, you shouldn't oppose opening up half the jails in the US letting out anyone who did less than the Dickster. With the money we save we can pay for insurance for illegal immigrants. At least they didn't cross the border in a White House limo!
If you ever get in legal trouble for god's sake don't act as your own lawyer!
Taft after serving as President went on to become the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court. At 72 years old, he died of old age - not at the hand of an assassin.
John Wilkes Booth's murder of Lincoln had zilch to do with taxes.
Booth and his co-conspirators hatched a plan to kill Lincoln, VP Johnson, and Secretary of State Seward to help the Confederacy. Although Lee had already surrendered to the North, Booth and his crew refused to accept that the war was over. True, my mistake, I don't know how but my mind mixed the names Taft and Garfield. Some days I get these little gizmos in my head.
About Abe's death, well I was trying to make it look like a joke, you know instead of J. W. Booth, an angry taxpayer, but obviously it didn't work. Thanks for the comment anyway. Maybe next time and after a humor refreshing course I will be able to make a real joke about history. Cheers!
Don't you realize several of our pals who post see nothing to joke about when its comes to taxes!
To me its only money where I pay and get fucked - same as any monger!
I get mixed up about our Presidents too, but remembered Taft was so fat a would be assassin would have been worried if he tried anything up-close-and -personal, the chief exec's body might fall and crush him!
C's September sales esimated to decline 30%! Clunkers is over, they mfg no replacement inventory, and basically Fiat is ''in over their head''
-------------
Sid told you so! Fiat--what a joke!A few years ago, a friend on mine's father went to his doctor for a routine check up. When his tests came back, his doctor called him to return to the hospital the next day. When they met, the doctor gave him the bad news that cancer had been found. It is a story told thousands of time a week across America.
As you can imagine, he and his family were both worried and scared. My friend's mother was beside herself to the point she needed to be put on medication for anxiety for a while. Fortunately, as a former construction worker in a union company, he had excellent insurance and was able to be scheduled for emergency surgery two days later.
After the surgery was completed the doctors gave the family a mixed report again a common outcome. They were hopeful they had caught and removed all of the cancerous cells, but they set up an aggressive regimen of radiation and chemotherapy to try to assure elimination of the cancer threat and at a minimum have it go into remission. They could provide no definitive timeline or any prognosis of a defined outcome.
Cancer, its causes and treatments, can be looked on as a metaphor for the current global economic crisis. As can the manner in which my friend's mother dealt with a horrible time in her life.
At various times, the sad and angry woman attacked the doctors as quacks who were using medical voodoo to treat her husband and claimed that they wanted him to stay sick so they could make more money treating him. He wanted to sue them for malpractice. All of this because the surgery, radiation and chemotherapy didn't cure him fast enough in her eyes. Her emotions were understandable, if not her rationality.
My friend's mother's thoughts and behavior are exactly akin to the critics - like Sidney - of President Obama's treatment of the economic crisis. It hasn't worked fast enough, therefore he is a quack and it will never work. At least my friend's mother had good reason for her purely emotional mind-set.
For many years, a threatening condition went undetected in the global economy. Finally, last fall, that condition reached a critical mass and metastasized to where it began to attack critical financial and economic organs with potentially catastrophic implications for the economic corpus as a whole.
As the hidden bubble began to burst, the deterioration in the global housing market, became clear for all to see. Immediately, and in some haste, radical surgery was performed when the US Treasury and the Fed let Lehman Brothers fail. Soon a number of important, but not essential organs (AIG, et al. Were put under the knife.
As the radical surgery was being performed, a future regimen of economic radiation treatments (in the form of renewed regulation of the markets) was begun. It was accompanied by aggressive economic chemotherapy (in the form of various forms of capital infusions into the financial system and into the base economy) Because of the quick, unorthodox and aggressive intervention, the economy was saved from the possibility of flat-lining.
Treatment has been underway for very brief period. Measured both by the length of time the hidden disease had been building and the severity and breadth of the damage that had been done to essential organs and the integral health of the global economy, treatment is obviously in its early stages and should be judged accordingly and additional treatment may be required.
Just like in a case of advanced cancer, at such an early stage, despite some encouraging signs, whether and when full economic health is restored cannot be answered with confidence as yet.
Unfortunately, critics of the President are attacking him with a venom that is borderline unhinged.
Without the excuse my friend's mother had of fear for the survival of her life partner, from marginally serious critics like John McCain to the psychotics like Rush, Sean and Glenn, relying solely on ideology, politics, ignorance, guilt stemming from silent awareness of who really spread the cancer and / or mean-spirited resentment, they are driving a dangerous public debate.
Too bad Sid has bought into it!
My friend's father died after nine months of a valiant fight. His mother finally resigned herself to the reality that his doctors did their best in a losing war. Let's hope our economy has a better fate, but I doubt reality will ever be accepted and acknowledged by the whack jobs.
Three Disappointed MongersYou claim three nameless mongers are displeased that Obama has extended the Cuba embargo.
Can we assume the mystery mongers are Jackson, Alamo and you.
Does that trouble you because now it almost looks like Obama isn't the brain dead socialist, commie-luvin' scumbag pal of Fidel and Cesar you told us he is?
Just seeking clarification!
Don't you realize several of our pals who post see nothing to joke about when its comes to taxes!
To me its only money where I pay and get fucked - same as any monger!
I get mixed up about our Presidents too, but remembered Taft was so fat a would be assassin would have been worried if he tried anything up-close-and -personal, the chief exec's body might fall and crush him!Gentlemen, do you think you are getting fucked? Let me tell you, you have not seen anything. As a mexican litigator I have seen several cases and tax laws that border in insanity. Example: 2 years ago we got our "flat tax" (mexican style at 17.5%) but we also have a regular income tax (called ISR in Mx at a rate of 28%) Well, any decent Government would choose one or the other to tax people, but not ours, If you pay ISR then you probably won't pay flat tax.
However if you pay flat tax, you still will pay ISR. Complex? Yes of course but it doesn't end there. Deductions are very limited so you will pay more than you should. Actually due to special tax regulations, some businesses must keep 3 or 4 accounting books, one for internal accounting, one for ISR, one for added value tax and another for flat tax, since regulations are different.
In other ocassion we can talk about inconstitutional taxes, tax over tax, etc.
So, Ricardo, as you can see in my country it is not about whether or not you will get screwed, it is about if you will be by one or two schlongs. I hope you understand my "funny" humor when it comes to taxes.
BTW, about Taft it is true, the guy was so huge he could have been a sumotori, and any hitman would have been history! LOL
Wild Walleye
09-15-09, 19:42
It probably won't come as a surprise but, I like the idea of a flat tax (not the Mexican two-tax flat tax) in theory.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that it will ever happen. Further, discussions of 'replacing' the income tax with a consumption tax is folly, too. In fact, if the USA were to adopt a VAT tax, knowing how things work in Washington, it would be in addition to income tax not instead of income taxes.
George Harrison had it down:
"Here's one for you, nineteen for me.
Cause I'm the taxman!"
No one likes taxes. No one!
But I realize civilization has a price tag!
As to a flat tax. What happens after the implants?
Wild Walleye
09-15-09, 20:01
Good find on the Ecomist Intel report. There are a bunch of other good pieces in the Vale publications as well as on EIU's website. Although, it is free on the Vale website and US$95 on EIU's.
Funny the resources one can find on university websites, it is just a question of knowing where to look for them.
Wild Walleye
09-15-09, 20:03
As to a flat tax. What happens after the implants?No, no, no. The flat tax means that flat women who don't get implants, get taxed. They can opt out of the tax system by participating in beautifying the country.
But I realize civilization has a price tag!Which everyone should have to pay, including the 40% of American Citizens who at this time are exempt from Federal income taxes.
Of course, given that this 40% has no income tax liability, it's not surprising that they don't care what the other 60% is forced to pay.
It's also not surprising that they want free health care regardless of it's impact on the federal deficit, because they don't expect to have to pay that either.
Thanks,
Jackson
No, no, no. The flat tax means that flat women who don't get implants, get taxed. They can opt out of the tax system by participating in beautifying the country.Ah, yes. Social engineering via the tax code, brought to you by the newly-emerging Stiff Dick Party.
Thanks,
Jackson
Everyone should have to pay, including the 40% of American Citizens who at this time are exempt from Federal income taxes.
JacksonI used to work for the billionaire be*tch, Leona Helmsley, who famously told her housekeeper: "We don't pay taxes. Only little people pay taxes."
Maybe Jackson thinks thats OK. As an equal opportunity kinda guy, his position is clear, so what if someone can't put food on the family table. Cough some pesos over to Uncle Sam, you slackers!
Now, if you happen to be shrewd with good accountants like Madame Helmsley, you can be among the lucky fucks who pay little or no taxes.
In 2002, before the Bush tax cuts for the rich made things even better for them, 5,650 individuals and couples with annual incomes over $200k paid no federal income tax. Among that high-income group, almost 83,000, or one in 33, paid less than a dime in taxes for every dollar of income. An additional 79,000 paid less than 15 cents.
Warren Buffet points out that that he was taxed at 17.7% on the $46 million he made in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60,000, was taxed at 30%. Buffet is not unique. In 2005, according to Daily Finance, the top 400 US taxpayers earned $250 million on average in 2005. They paid 17.2% in income taxes or roughly half the 37% paid by a family making $75k. Since 2005, that imbalance has only gotten worse. Buffet doesn't think that's fair. (Neither do I!
We keep hearing the US corporate tax rates are among the highest. Really? Well like individuals, if you are a corporation with good accountants who know how to play the hide the profits overseas, you can pay no corporate income taxes.
A study released last year, showed between 1998 and 2005 while US corporate sales totaled $2.5 trillion, 57% of US firms paid no federal corporate income taxes for at least one year and 42% paid none for two or more years during those years.
Many years, some of the most profitable US companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and oil giants pay no taxes - kinda like the 40% average stiffs who have Jackson so jacked off!
If wealthy individuals, families and corporations paid the same tax rates they did under Reagan, we would have enough to make the deficit almost disappear, as well as pay for universal health insurance. Now weren't the Reagan years the "Golden Age"?
(Footnote One: Madame Helmsley eventually went to jail for cheating on her taxes. Rudy Guiliani put her in the slammer, because she was stupid enough to keep cheating while the IRS was auditing her!
(Footnote Two: In an earlier post I did point out that most attempts at figuring out who pays their fair share in taxes is pretty meaningless given the make up of the tax system with deductions, exemptions and complex rate structures for income, payroll, capital gains, estate taxes, etc. But above is my story and I'm stickin'to it!
Member #4112
09-16-09, 00:08
I am just guessing here, but I will bet you only do your own taxes or maybe even have them done by someone else. Since I have been in practice (30 + years) I have watched the tax laws change and always expand in scope regardless of which party was in power at the time.
While you love to quote these "facts" ie percentages of the evil rich who do not pay enough in your opinion, permit me to point out approximately the top 10% of earners pay the vast majority of the taxes while the bottom 20% pay nothing. While according to your percentabes Warren Buffett's secretary paid a higher marginal tax rate on her $60K ($18,000 in FIT) than Buffet paid on his $46 Million ($8.9 MILLION in FIT) Once you start working out how much is paid in by each does this change the "fairness" of the situation. In your view how much is enough? I think the secretary needs to stop doing her own taxes or fire her CPA. May I be permitted to point out Warren Buffett creates and employs a lot more folks than the secretary. But since he is the evil rich I assume from your point of view this does not count.
This may come as a shock to you but different types of income are treated differently under our tax laws (enacted by both Democrats and Republicans) In fact you are provided very generous tax credits (direct deductions to your taxes owed thereby reducing your tax rate) for certain income producing activities the government in its infinite wisdom has chosen to encourage.
Another little inconvenient truth you failed to mention, each time taxes are lowered the economy grows and people as a whole become more prosperous. I am not saying our tax system is perfect, but I consider any tax system unfair as the government is always the worst caretaker of my money.
In closing, the folks who take the risks are the ones who create the companies that produce jobs and products for consumption. Being a small business owner myself I know a little about this, so does Jackson as he also ran his own business. The first year and half I was in business if you computed the hours I put in with the income I earned I should have reported myself to the state for paying myself less than the minimum wage!
So if you are going to complain, start your own firm with the unending hours, 24/7 commitment, forgo vacations and simple pursuits to earn your own profits then talk to me about "unfair" taxation. While you sup at the table prepared for you by someone else's labor don't complain about that which you do not know.
Here ends the lesson for the day.
It probably won't come as a surprise but, I like the idea of a flat tax (not the Mexican two-tax flat tax) in theory.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that it will ever happen. Further, discussions of 'replacing' the income tax with a consumption tax is folly, too. In fact, if the USA were to adopt a VAT tax, knowing how things work in Washington, it would be in addition to income tax not instead of income taxes.The flat tax, in its original form is actually a decent idea, Eastern Europe has benefited of such tax, unfortunately in my country the stupid jackasses we have in the Congress can't think straight and destroyed the original concept and instead of increasing they actually reduced the amount of taxes collected by the SAT (Mexican IRS) I recommend you to speak with your congressmen and avoid at all costs having such a stupid double tax in the US.
For next year Pres. Calderon is trying to pass a new 2% tax against poverty, it is delusional and stupid, since most people don't pay taxes and those who do can't pay more. I won't be surprised if you guys value monger in Mx in a couple years, things look awful!
I will express my opinion about Mexican taxes in Churchill's words: "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." This is also my opinion about over taxing the citizens in the US.
Sorry Exxon, but I'll borrow your favorite phrase: "The cocksuckers!"
I promess to pay you royalties, do you take Tanqueray or Beefeathers instead of USD? Cheers!
I consider any tax system unfair as the government is always the worst caretaker of my money.
While you sup at the table prepared for you by someone else's labor don't complain about that which you do not know. You say I "sup at the table prepared. By someone else's labor." How the f*ck do you know who set the table I sup at? Your comment is pretty presumptuous I'd say.
Having always made my living the old-fashioned way I worked. Over recent years, like every computer literate salaried or self-employed stiff in the US, I used on-line software to prepare tax returns. Love that audit red alert feature! Free is the right price too.
Now this our first exchange, so I think I should let you know that I don't mind being criticized for what I say. But I do get a bit testy when I get criticized for what I didn't say. Where do I call the Sage of Omaha Mr. Buffet - evil? I don't.
To me Buffet is a model corporate citizen and one of the most honorable men out there. His stance on tax fairness is only one reason. His record as a philanthropist is another. The third is his working with President Obama on trying to rescue the economy from the disaster that Bush left behind.
Mr. Buffet knows a thing or two about business, making money and paying taxes. He made his own points on his tax burden versus his secretary, which you are free to refute.
Now Leona Helmsley who you may not be familiar with qualified as the "evil rich" in spades. She was a nasty piece of work. She used to like to walk through her husband's buildings firing people at random. As she aged she went a bit whacko and when she died she left $12 million to her dog. Now would you go along with a 90% marginal income tax on a dog with income over $10k per annum? I would.
If you are a tax accountant I presume you are pretty good at math. Let's use Madame Helmsley to analyze your point that "the top 10% of earners pay the vast majority of the taxes."
Her weekly income from various sources at one time was $2 million. Let's assume for this example that she paid taxes at the 18% rate (like Mr. Buffet did) She would send Uncle Sam $360,000 a week. It would take a total of 1040 secretaries making $1,150 a week and paying $346 in taxes each week to equal the Queen of Mean's contribution.
With 1 the equal of 1040, of course, the top earners put the most into the tax kitty. The relevance of that math to the fairness question escapes me.
I should mention Mrs. Helmsley earned her money the other old-fashioned way she fucked an old billionaire silly, who before he met her thought a blow-job was when someone left a window open.
As for the bottom 20% or earners who pay nothing, that is fine with me. Fortunately, after high school I was permanently out of that bracket. Having been taught the virtues of charity and compassion by my mother, I had (and still have) no problem paying more in taxes, so that someone struggling to put food on his or her family table might have a little bit easier time.
I would agree that "fairness" in regard to the distribution of tax burdens is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to favor a progressive system.
You state that it "may come as a shock" to me that "different types of income are treated differently under our tax laws." I guess you didn't read my post very carefully. My last paragraph said exactly that to wit: "most attempts at figuring out who pays their fair share in taxes is pretty meaningless given the make up of the tax system with deductions, exemptions and complex rate structures for income, payroll, capital gains, estate taxes, etc."
You mention the "a rising tide lifts all boats" thesis as an "inconvenient truth" that I fail to mention. The "inconvenient truth" about that thesis is that although it's a great sound bite, unfortunately it does not hold true in the real world economy.
Numerous academic studies of changes in US tax policy over the past 60 years, suggest there is no evidence of their impact on job creation or destruction.
Since 1950, significant tax increases and decreases have both been followed by job losses and job gains.
In 2003, Bush promised his tax cuts would create 5+ more million jobs by the end of 2004. Only 2.6 million jobs were created, which was actually less than what had been projected without the cuts.
Tax reduction does, however, lead to economic disparity between the rich and poor. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have increased the gap between the rich and poor beyond what it was in the 1920s. Also after the cuts, Americans living in poverty rose from 11.3% of the population in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. The poor people's boats kept leaking I guess!
Of course, the number of billionaires rose to 374.
You have lots of company in the anti-government segment of the population. Now my guess is you also would find the idea of anarchy unattractive. So we are stuck with government aren't we?
I am not defender of where the US is today and I fear where it is headed. As dedicated and talented as he is, I doubt Obama will be able to get the US back to its position as the unchallenged global leader.
I have worked with a number of entrepreneurs on start up ventures a few failed and some succeeded one in particular went supersonic. I have worked long into the night along side them.
I applaud and respect "folks who take the risks" and I applaud and respect the people, who do the grind work and who put in the long hours that help make the risk takers successful.
The engines of commerce require capital and labor. I see little reason to put one element on a higher moral plane.
There are many things "about that which YOU - Senor Doppelganger - do not know." For example, my career, professional achievements, financial circumstances, work ethic, work history, etc.
I do appreciate you taking the time to comment on my post, but I would suggest you stick to the tax issue and avoid groundless insinuations.
Member #4112
09-16-09, 11:55
In my opening I stated "I am just guessing" which would infer I have made assumptions based upon your original post. I could only take from your post you had little understanding of our nation's tax structure beyond decrying Ms Helmsley's excesses and have always been an "employee" never an "employer." I also took from your original post your position the rich need to pay more, the same old diatribe of the left.
First let me say you seem to have a fixation on Helmsley. How she came into wealth is irrelevant to the discussion of her criminal violations and subsequent incarceration, which she most certainly deserved. Do you secretly envy her ability to gain wealth via her gender and libido? My dear Ricardo, is Charley Rangle any different, perhaps worse as he holds the public trust and authors the very tax laws he flaunts? Where is your righteous indignation for Mr. Rangle, Mr. Bolski, ed al?
Permit me to add I don't believe any CEO deservers the multiple millions they are paid to run their company in the ground. This wonderful notion of tying income to performance at the upper management level, which could be argued helped lead to the financial debacle we recently experienced, came directly from liberals in the late 1960's and 1970's insisting American business management was too conservative and needed to be more aggressive and would become so if there was a direct link between risk and reward for management, hang the share holders.
Now permit me to turn to your shining knight of corporate responsibility, Mr. Buffett. Please do your homework on Mr. Buffett, I believe he will not be the beacon of corporate responsibility you believe him to be. He was no different than his competitors as he amassed his fortune and moved up the financial ladder. He was neither better nor worse and most certainly was not the last word in corporate responsibility you seem to think him. He did what it took to get where he is. Now nearing the end of his life it is easy to "get religion" while standing atop a huge pile of cash. Please do not misinterpret me as I believe Mr. Buffett had every right to act as he did amassing his fortune and now has every right to "reinvent himself" as he has done numerous times over the course of his career, it is what made America great opportunity!
Our tax system is designed to redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who don't under the grand auspicious of our all knowing federal government. I would embrace a flat tax, everyone pays the same rate, no deductions, would you? Our government has embarked on courses never intended by the founding fathers nor authorized by the constitution. Perhaps you remember Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"? The noble goal of giving all the poor a "leg up" out of poverty and eliminating poverty in the United States within a single generation? No, it's called welfare. That one really worked out well didn't it?
Liberals never understand the value of earning what you receive, by just handing it out you make the recipients dependent upon the government and strip away any dignity or self worth the individual has. We did not learn this lesson with the Native Americans we conquered, but reapplied the same principles again to our own peoples with the same results.
If you really want change, put term limits on Congress as well as the President. Obama does not have a clue, no more so than did Jimmy Carter thirty years ago, they were and are simply out of their element and over their heads. I don't believe either is inherently evil just misguided and simplistic.
I have no illusions regarding influencing your positions on these issues, merely the exchange of ideas. You will have to develop a thicker skin if you wish to participate in the discussion on this thread. Please feel free to enlighten me regarding you credentials by PM if you wish.
Best regards
"You had little understanding of our nation's tax structure. And have always been an "employee" never an "employer"
I SEE MR. PRESUMPTUOUS IS BACK ON THE SOAP BOX. SO ONLY EMPLOYERS UNDERSTAND THE TAX SYSTEM? DOES THAT MEAN WE NEED TO CLOSE DOWN THE BIG ACCOUNTING FIRMS AND REPLACE THEM WITH ONE MAN (OR WOMAN? OWNER / OPERATED SHOPS!
Your position the rich need to pay more, the same old diatribe of the left.
A CALL FOR FAIRNESS IS A DIATRIBE ONLY IN THE EYE OF THE OFFENDED RIGHT. A MORE BALANCED DESCRIPTION WOULD BE A "POINT OF VIEW."
You. Have a fixation on Helmsley.
I USED A CASE ABOUT WHICH I HAD FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE. USUALLY A SMART IDEA AS ONE KNOWS THE FACTS.
Where is your righteous indignation for Mr. Rangel, Mr. Bolski, et al?
RIGHT HERE - I AM OUTRAGED BY THE CONGRESSMAN - AMONG MANY OTHERS. BUT WHO THE HELL IS BOLSKI?
I don't believe any CEO deservers the multiple millions they are paid to run their company in the ground.
HEY, WE AGREE. TOO BAD MANY BOARDS OF DIRECTORS AT MAJOR FIRMS OFTEN HAVEN'T AGREED WITH US!
AMONG TODAY'S MANY EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROBLEMS IS THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN ACTUAL RESULTS AND THE HUGE BONUSES GIVEN TO EXECUTIVES, EVEN WHEN THE COMPANY EARNINGS PLUMMET.
THE DIRECTORS FIRE THE SCHMUCKS AND GIVE THEM TENS OF MILLIONS AS A GOING-AWAY PRESENT!
MIND-F*CKING BOGGLING AS WE SAY IN BOSTON.
This wonderful notion of tying income to performance at the upper management level, which could be argued helped lead to the financial debacle we recently experienced, came directly from liberals in the late 1960's and 1970's insisting American business management was too conservative and needed to be more aggressive and would become so if there was a direct link between risk and reward for management, hang the share holders.
WHERE THE HELL DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS FANTASY? SEE ABOVE! WHAT PRAY TELL WOULD YOU USE AS THE GAUGE FOR SETTING APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION LEVELS?
Please do your homework on Mr. Buffett.
I DID.
Now nearing the end of his life it is easy to "get religion" while standing atop a huge pile of cash.
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
, remember Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"? The noble goal of. Eliminating poverty in the United States within a single generation?
I DO REMEMBER. THE WAR IN VIETNAM REPLACED THE WAR ON POVERTY BEFORE IT WAS STARTED. LIKE BUSH LEFT AFGHANISTAN UNFINISHED FOR HIS GRAND IRAQ ADVENTURE. WE KNOW HOW THOSE HAVE WORKED OUT.
Liberals never understand the value of earning what you receive.
SAYS YOU.
We did not learn this lesson with the Native Americans we conquered.
WOW! REVEALING COMMENT! I SEE YOU ARE OK WITH A LITTLE GENOCIDE.
If you really want change, put term limits on Congress.
THE GINGRICH REPUBLICANS ELECTED IN 1994 PROMISED TO ABIDE BY TERM LIMITS AND THEN KEPT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION. SO MUCH FOR THAT IDEA!
Obama does not have a clue, no more so than did Jimmy Carter.
SO CARTER AND OBAMA ARE KIND OF LIKE BUSH II!
BUT WAIT, REMEMBER WHAT NIXON DID WHEN HE HAD A CLUE! MAYBE EXPERIENCE IN PRESIDENTS IS OVER-RATED!
I have no illusions regarding influencing your positions.
ME NEITHER!
Best regards.
AND TO YOU!I think we may inhabit different planets as much as have opposite views!
Hope the weather is as nice on yours as it is here!
Member #4112
09-16-09, 15:38
Well let's see:
You took my explanation regarding my assumptions for my original post out of context but that is OK.
Yes I do believe employers, especially small business employers are more in touch with the tax situation and its impact on business and the economy than employees in most cases. Small business is the backbone of the economy. Please debate this one with someone who cares.
I don't recall anything about genocide, but regarding the Native Americans the point was to illustrate the sit down and we will hand it to you mentality of welfare. It did not work with them and it does not work today. Reservations and government housing projects have a lot in common. Not sure how you derived approving of genocide from t his.
Regarding the "War on Poverty" and the Nam, perhaps you did not notice but the Nam ended officially in January of 1973 but the raging success of Welfare is still with us over 40 years later. Perhaps you can explain this "success" to me instead of providing excuses as to why it did not work, if not in terms of human failure despite the "leg up".
Please do a little research into changing executive compensation after 1965. You will find CEO's, Presidents and their boards embraced the recommendations of tying compensation to stock or other easily manipulated performance criteria giving rise to all sorts of schemes for gain in the short term and completely disregarding the company's long term success and remaining the stewards of the company for the true owners, the share holders.
You used the term "appropriate compensation" regarding executive compensation, a very subjective term dependent upon your point of view. Perhaps we should return to the days when executive's made only a few multiples of the average wage for their company employees (read before 1960) instead of 100,000's of times this average wage today. No one is worth that much money, we left "reasonable" and "appropriate" in the dust regarding executive compensation 30 years ago my friend.
Perhaps we don't speak the same language, but I said TERM LIMITS which would indicate mandatory legislation just as with the President's TERM LIMIT. Do you mean to indicate you believe a politician (Democrat or Republican) who tells you he will not run for office again! Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as well? Such naivety is both unbecoming and disingenuous.
Now we turn to taxes, you believe redistribution of wealth is an acceptable means of social engineering. I totally disagree, due to its punishing success and encouraging sloth. Back to a case of who's ox is being gored. I like the flat tax or a national sales tax and the abolition of the IRS. What say you?
You just don't seem to be able to engage in reasonable discourse. Enjoy the day
Well let's see:
You took my explanation regarding my assumptions for my original post out of context but that is OK.
SEEMS WE ARE ALL OUT OF CONTEXT ALL THE TIME.
Small business is the backbone of the economy.
BEING THE BACKBONE IS HARD WORK - THANKS FOR YOUR GOOD EFFORTS. I KNOW THE REST OF US ARE JUST CHOPPED LIVER.
Regarding the Native Americans.
DO YOU WISH TO SHARE WITH US WHAT ROLE YOU OR YOUR ANCESTORS PLAYED IN THEIR "CONQUEST"?
Welfare is still with us.
CLINTON'S REFORM REDUCED WELFARE AND THE PROBLEM WAS IMPROVING UNTIL THE BUSH ECONOMY COLLAPSED AND DESTROYED THE JOB MARKET.
Executive compensation after 1965
WE AGREE AGAIN.
Perhaps we should return to the days when executive's made only a few multiples of the average wage for their company employees (read before 1960) instead of 100,000's of times this average wage today.
YOU GOT MY VOTE ON THAT BUCKEROO!
Do you mean to indicate you believe a politician (Democrat or Republican) who tells you he will not run for office again!
NEVER DID.
BUT I DO HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT DENYING VOTERS THE RIGHT TO ELECT WHOMEVER THEY WISH.
HAVING WORKED IN CONGRESS I BELIEVE THAT TERM LIMITS WON'T BRING BACK THE DAYS OF CITIZEN LEGISLATORS. STAFF WILL RUN THINGS. THEIR INEXPERIENCED BOSSES WON'T KNOW HOW TO STOP THEM. AND THE SPECIAL INTERESTS WILL HAVE MORE SWAY THAN THEY DO ALREADY.
You believe redistribution of wealth is an acceptable means of social engineering.
YUP!
You just don't seem to be able to engage in reasonable discourse. Enjoy the dayNOW IS WHAT I WRITE HERE UNREASONABLE?
OR IS UNREASONABLE WHEN SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH YOU.
YOU SOUND REASONABLE TO ME IF NOT NECESSARILY RIGHT!
Member #4112
09-16-09, 16:46
God save us from those who believe they have the market cornered on "Knowing What Is Right"
I don't belive I have it "Right" and you have it "Wrong" but I do know the values in which I beleive, and there is a difference my friend.
God save us from those who believe they have the market cornered on "Knowing What Is Right"
I don't belive I have it "Right" and you have it "Wrong" but I do know the values in which I beleive and there is a difference my friend.Doppelganger.
God help us!
Like you my friend, my values are what I cherish most.
Now facts - they do run in the right or wrong category.
But, as for opinions - to each his (or her) own.
Ciao, ciao,
Ricardo.
(But who the hell is Bolski? I knew a dentist in Boston by that name a few years ago.
The first year and half I was in business if you computed the hours I put in with the income I earned I should have reported myself to the state for paying myself less than the minimum wage!Been there, done that!
So if you are going to complain, start your own firm with the unending hours, 24/7 commitment, forgo vacations and simple pursuits to earn your own profits then talk to me about "unfair" taxation. While you sup at the table prepared for you by someone else's labor don't complain about that which you do not know.And if you are successful, you will experience an enormous sense of personal satisfaction in having created something of value, a feeling that no government bureaucrat will ever understand, along with a belief that no one has any right to confiscate any part of what you've created, regardless of what sophistry they may employ to justify their intent.
Been there, done that!
And if you are successful, you will experience an enormous sense of personal satisfaction in having created something of value, a feeling that no government bureaucrat will ever understand, along with a belief that no one has any right to confiscate any part of what you've created, regardless of what sophistry they may employ to justify their intent.Your superiority over lesser mortals as demonstrated by your business acumen should give you great comfort. Too bad it is diluted, when you are coerced to give up some of your hard won treasure, because elected representatives were given that authority by your fellow citizens. And their blood-sucking bureaucrats do the dirty work. Oh the horror!
Those inferior people who have intentionally pursued less fulfilling work than entrepreneurs just can't get no satisfaction. They live diminished lives leaving nothing behind. The living dead is what they are!
It all goes back to that subversive book the Bible. If only Christ had not engaged in his infuriating sophistry in the Sermon on the Mount and his many other naive and misguided pronouncements, maybe no one would be so jazzed up about helping their fellow man and we wouldn't have to pay all these taxes.
Why in heaven's name did he go and say "You cannot serve God and wealth" and "if anyone wants to take away your tunic, let him have your cloak" and "do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth".
Worst of all he said ""it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
What a duffuss! What moralistic bullshit! And it has been used as an excuse to rob from the rich to give to the poor for centuries.
Now along comes Obama - the New Messiah! Will it never end?
...the New Messiah! Will it never end?Sunday, January 20, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013The O'Resurrection! Four More Years of Goodness and Light Begin!
(Jackson. You should read my frequent contributions to the jokes thread for some relief!)
Hasta.
Member #4112
09-16-09, 22:22
From your earlier post.
"Now facts - they do run in the right or wrong category."
My friend according to the dictionary's definition: A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation.
Facts by their very definition are correct and therefore are not wrong.
Regarding your post to Jackson as well as to me, neither Jackson nor I have ever inferred directly or indirectly our entrepreneurial endeavors elevate us above anyone, only we have a very different prospective of the issues based on producing a product and creating employment opportunities. Activities which exposed us to a much broader scope of tax and business issues than those to which an average employee would be exposed.
Lastly, the constitution does not authorize the federal government or its duly elected representatives to carry out the massive social engineering you seem to love so much. I do not agree with Obama's policies and feel he does not have a clue about what he is doing and will lift the standing of Carter as it relates to failed presidencies by the end of his administration in a little more than three years.
Your attempts to castigate Jackson and me ring hollow. Surely such an articulate individual as yourself can make your point without lowering the conversation to name calling and sarcastic commentary.
This grows tiresome. I concur and suggest you switch to the Joke forum for a pick me up!
Actually all he did was flip the script on you. If you look back at your earlier posts, they were nothing more than over generalizations, name calling and wild assumptions.
Nice try though,
Regards,
BM.
* waits for more wild assumptions, over generalizations and name calling *
This grows tiresome. Surely such an articulate individual as yourself can make your point without lowering the conversation to name calling and sarcastic commentary.
Wild Walleye
09-17-09, 02:30
Sunday, January 20, 2013The wheels are coming off. This might possibly become the all-time earliest lame duck in history. If America gets lucky, we will see a watershed midterm election next year and chairman Maobama will get early retirement (which we will pay for, of course)
You shouldn't drink and post!
Mary Travers, a member of Peter, Paul and Mary died yesterday after a long battle with leukemia.
Here's a little something to think about :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oU7M4OeSRM
It's true, no matter how much you kick and scream. It's undeniably true.
Regards,
BM
Obama has cancelled the "Star Wars" missile defense deployment in Eastern Europe, proposed by the Bush Administration, and will replace it with a more practical and less expensive alternative.
Obama's decision to scrap the controversial system came after a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon.
Republican leaders, who used to argue that Presidents should listen to their generals, say Obama is "appeasing Russia" and "weakening our national security" by listening to his generals. Go figure!
Obama's Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a Republican holdover from the Bush Team) answered critics stating: "those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing." He added Obama's new plan "provides a better missile defense capability" and will be operational seven years sooner than the Bush plan.
Case closed one might think, but one would be wrong. Reality and logic will not sway the President's critics. Get ready for Dick Cheney to re-emerge from his bunker to mutter and sputter how Obama has surrendered to Putin, stabbed US allies in the back and will get nothing in return, etc.
Looked at objectively, it was clear that the Bush plan was aimed at a threat that didn't exist, using missile technology that hadn't been proved to work. Bush was willing to deploy an unproven, enormously expensive system for reasons that had less to do with protecting the Europeans, than US domestic politics.
The plan served three key conservative political objectives. First, was Republican affiliated defense industry financial interests, second, the "Star Wars" system cultists in the party who, as an article of faith, clung to Reagan's imaginary high-tech "umbrella" protecting good nations against the missiles launched by rogue nations and third, the need to keep both the mythology of the Cold War and the "existential threat" from Islamist terror alive, as clubs to beat up Democrats whenever they might suggest cooperating with Russia or talking with Iran makes sense.
In order to bully or buy support, the Bush team had threatened its way across Europe and bribed Polish and Czech government and military officials, who lusted for the billions of US taxpayer dollars that were promised. As normal, Bush could care less that the vast majority of citizens in Poland, the Czech Republic and all across Europe opposed him. Most NATO member states were either opposed or non-committal, as well. If America wanted it that was enough.
Now, Obama has proposed an alternative approach to effectively reducing the threat from long-range missile attacks - using cheaper, more reliable, proven, ready-to-deploy, scaled to the actual threat technology.
On the issue, he has managed the Pentagon masterfully. He has listened to US allies who wanted the Bush plan to disappear. In his no drama Obama way, he put down another marker in his fight against the decades-long Republican-led wasteful and dangerous welfare system for defense systems contractors. He has, as he promised he would, "reset the default button" with Russia.
Finally, he has moved the country a major step forward towards a sane and responsible foreign policy.
Even if no concessions from the Russians result, this is the right decision. Saving money and reducing unnecessary antagonisms with Moscow and our European allies alone make it the smart play.
Of course, the right wing dinosaurs that hate the fact that the Cold War ended are apoplectic. Which is another sign O man is right.
Member #4112
09-18-09, 00:09
Perhaps you are correct, perhaps not as we can argue the point forever as we are both dedicated to our points of view.
BUT. Could he not have made his decision public on another day rather than on the anniversary of Russia's invasion of the country?
Perhaps you are correct, perhaps not as we can argue the point forever as we are both dedicated to our points of view.
BUT. Could he not have made his decision public on another day rather than on the anniversary of Russia's invasion of the country?Reports have made it clear the Administration rushed to get the Obama, Gates and Mullen statements out after someone leaked the story.
There were people in Poland and the Czech Republic who saw big bucks disappear as a result of this and they had an incentive to embarrass Obama with a leak to the press on this exact date. Or some savvy Cold Warrior with a knowledge of history who learned what was up and dropped a dime.
It's how revenge politics works.
Wild Walleye
09-18-09, 02:10
It is the action (inaction) that is so damaging.
Here is the background on the Reagan / Bush multi-billion dollar boondoggle "Star Wars" missile system's track record of test delays, failed launches, missed targets and cost over-runs.
The system was supposed to cost $47 billion to develop. Instead between 2002 and 2009 a total of $63 billion was spent on research, testing and evaluation. (I think Jackson was billed for most of that! And the system still doesn't work.
You decry "inaction" when Obama takes decisive action to stop throwing billions down a rat hole. As Hillary said if Obama was seen walking on water his critics would say "see he can't swim."
Of course, maybe you know more about missiles than 10 nobel lauriate scientists do. But, rather than just knee-jerk dissing of Obama, read what follows and learn something.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Story from Ian Sample, the science correspondent of the London Guardian Newspaper.
Writes Mr. Sample:
"For a system designed to protect the country from nuclear oblivion, the US national missile defense project's history of failure has long raised eyebrows among scientists.
"Years of testing have seen rocket-propelled interceptors refuse to launch from their silos, fail to separate from their boosters and miss their targets, sometimes by hundreds of miles.
"Military officials can claim only a 50% hit rate, and only then in tests that are far removed from a real world attack scenario, said David Wright, a physicist and co-director of global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
"Some tests were delayed for months because the weather was not considered good enough for the interceptor to find its target.
"When tests did go ahead, missile operators knew when the target would be launched and its trajectory in the sky. The missile system that was due to be installed in Europe had undergone even less rigorous testing. The plans included a two-stage interceptor which has yet to even begin flight tests.
"The radar intended to be installed in the Czech Republic has been used in tests to track targets from its base in the Kwajalein atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Technical studies by scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology show that Pentagon estimates of the radar's ability to detect incoming missiles from Iran were off by a factor of 100. The missiles would have produced too small a radar signature to be spotted in time.
"Wright said it was reasonable to assume Iran would be capable of confounding interceptor missiles that rely on heat-seeking infra-red sensors to home in on their targets. "They will definitely be motivated to work on counter-measures and they could defeat the interceptor's sensors," he said.
"When people say how well the system works, the truth is it is impossible to know how well it will work because there's no realistic data," Wright added.
"Twenty leading scientists, including 10 Nobel laureates, wrote to President Obama in July to urge the administration to reconsider the European phase of the missile defense system.
"The planned European missile defense system would have essentially no capability to defend against a real missile attack. Independent and US governmental technical analyses have shown that any country that could field a long-range missile could also add decoys and other counter-measures to that missile that would defeat a defence system like that being proposed for Europe," the letter stated.
"The Obama administration's revised plan will use the Aegis ship-based weapons system, which could launch SM-3 interceptor missiles from the Mediterranean sea. The system is scheduled to be deployed in 2011."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You know I actually thought Bush did a few good things like his helping Africa fight HIV. I said so at the time.
You might try being even-handed too. That way reasonable people won't think you're a whack job!
Puts things in perspective.
Forwarded by an Air Force Academy cadet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupEThe video shows he has a future as a teacher. As an economist perhaps as well, although then simplicity and perspective get a little more complex.
I wish him well, especially up in the air defending us all!
Barack Obama's speeches are getting right to the point of distribution in the USA.
Can't get away from the leeches.
His administration is a success.
Dick Cheney is in the hospital for surgery. I never heard from them during the administration. Karl Rove is on tv from time to time. Don Rumsfled and Karl Rove pulled in for questioning. Don Rumsfeld facing several international criminal trials and civil lawsuits.
He is cutting out much of the fat. Big deals going his way. Next election wondering who's for him, who's against.
New Campaign Highlights Growing Rift Between Grassroots Liberals and the Democratic Party.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/new-campaign-highlights-growing-rift-between-grassroots-liberals-and-the-democratic-party.php?ref=fpa
Ease into this site. It's sweet.
Nice site. Obama put a lot of effort into. Keeps the big girls away.
Russia has announced it will remove it's short-range missiles from Kaliningrad in response to Obama's decision to eliminate the Bush plan to install US missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.
A Medeved spokesman said: "Reason has prevailed over ambitions. Naturally we will cancel countermeasures which Russia has planned in response."
Meanwhile, although Republicans and the US right wing press portrayed Obama's decision to cancel missiles based in Poland as "turning our back on an ally", the Polish people applaud it.
A new poll shows strong support for the move among the Poles with 48% of respondents saying decision was good and only 31% disagreeing. While 58% , agree the move would have no impact on Poland's security.
Lies, from dictators that never honor contracts! But O means well!Did I miss something?
Do Republican Presidents have problems with "premature exclamation." In addition to W, did Reagan claim "Mission Accomplished" before the job was done?
I thought Ronnie destroyed that evil commie empire when he almost single-handedly won the Cold War. Are you telling me the bastards are still hiding under my bed?
Here I saw the O Man turning good intentions into good policy.
He defuses a pointless and dangerous pissing contest with Russia - dumps a useless weapons system - that non-ideologues or guys not on the take from contractors in the Pentagon didn't want - because it doesn't work - one the recipient countries were bribed to take when they had opposed the idea - for use against threats the people in those countries don't fear - because the threats don't exist - and he saves tens of billions of tax dollars.
He goes ahead with a plan to use weapons that do work - that the generals in the Pentagon designed - that NATO and our key European allies prefer - that are scaled to the actual threat.
(Is it a good or bad thing that a lower Pentagon missile budget may mean Jackson can have more money to use on his own missile!
But, for some, if it's the O man, a good thing just ain't good enough!
Strange world we live in!
He defuses a pointless and dangerous pissing contest with Russia.He conceded without negotiating a single thing in return. What a weakling! It reminds me of Khrushchev vs the rookie Kennedy.
Dumps a useless weapons system.It humors me that you continuously state your completely unqualified opinions as facts.
. One the recipient countries were bribed to take when they had opposed the idea - for use against threats the people in those countries don't fear.Actually, what he did was throw Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus.
Because the threats don't exist.So you don't think that Iran's developing missile capability is a threat?
Wait, it's all become clear to me: Next week Ahmadinejad and the Messiah will have tea and work everything out.
Ricardo, you've swallowed the liberal talking points, hook, line and sinker.
Thanks,
Jackson
PS: Let me get out in front of this breaking news: Russia just announced today that they are scrapping their plans for a missile system to counter the defensive anti-missile system that the USA was planning to install in Eastern Europe. I'm sure that the Libs will point to this as proof that Obama made the right move in decapitating our plans for an anti-missile shield. Of course, the Libs will ignore one very important fact: The Russian's "plans" were an idle threat and never a potential reality because they don't have and never had the money to actually build any such system!
150 billion spent since the mid-80's on a system that doesn't work against a threat that doesn't exist. That makes us strong and protects our allies?
As far as getting a concession from the Russians, our investment in the system was in their national interest. We were pissing our money away on a do-nothing system that provided them with great cover for aggressive diplomatic, economic, and military actions. They are not going to give us anything to stop doing something that they want us to do. If we cancel it, we might start spending the money on weapons systems that have real military value.
I don't want to try to evaluate Obama because that will be done next year in the mid term elections and 2 years later during the Presidential elections. Personally I hope Obama's ideas (health care, direction of military expenditures) etc. Etc. Are a step in the right direction.
However, I miss Ronald Reagon. Reagon made Gorbachev his ***** and Reagon would make Putin his *****. You did not want to fuck with Reagon.
It is a interesting that the liberal minded, leftist leaning historians are forced to bite their tongues and rate Reagon as one of the 5 or 10 best Presidents we have had.
P.S. - in defense of the liberal minded, leftest leaning historians, even they put Jimmy "shit for brains" Carter at ther bottom of the barril - even below Tippecannoe (william henry harrison) and Tyler too - who served as President for a total of 32 days in 1841 before dying.
Could somebody please put a hand granade it that fucking idiot Carters ass or mouth (maybe the same thing) and pull the pin.
It is a interesting that the liberal minded, leftist leaning historians are forced to bite their tongues and rate Reagon as one of the 5 or 10 best Presidents we have had.Could well be when considering his policies in Europe, but in Central America, a total disaster. At least for the people that lived there. But maybe that doesn't count.
I don't have too much to comment on the specifics of the effectiveness of the two missle systems. I don't think any of us really know enough about the real details to know, but I can understand people having an opinion on it based on what both "sides" have published.
What I find interesting in the last few posts though, is a position that you, Roberto, have taken over Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, et al. I'm not saying that the White House decision was wrong or right, but the position that you have taken seems to me to be a little simplistic and flawed and what I often see as a problem with people who consider themselves "do-gooders" as opposed to the "evil conservatives" and the "warhawks" et al. (who have their own set of problems, to be sure!)
You make mention of the Cold War, and that it's supposedly over and the Conservatives are taking a contradictory position now, having in the past extolled Ronald Reagan as being one who stood firm in the face of the last dying gasps of the old Soviet Union (instead of just giving in and treating them like equals because they made a little noise about democracy as the old skin sloughed off) After all, if Reagan won the cold war, how could we still need all of this political clout in the region? Of course, the easiest comparison to that, I think, would be what happened between the First World War (The War to End All Wars) and the Second World War? The Allies won the first against Germany? Why was there a second?
To me, it seems that you cavalierly dismiss one thing that IS good about keeping the plan the way it was under Bush; that is, to make our allies in Eastern Europe feel safe and to help ensure they remain our allies (and not Russia's, for example) against WHATEVER threat may arise from that region.
THEY remember the Soviet Union. THEY remember what it means to live next to that rumbling giant and to be affected directly.
Okay, so maybe the "people" who make up the population have in large parts forgotten, or think that the threat is minimal, or what have you. The fact is, though, I don't think the governments, or the people who run the governments, have forgotten.
Earlier, you castigate those of us who really do not like the government to take our own money out of our hands to pay for things that we feel are moving the US towards socialism, things that "redistribute wealth" from the rich to the poor by force (and there are A LOT of us) using the argument that the government has the power (explicit in law or implicit in the Constitution) to tell us that it is for our own good, so shut up and do it, like it or lump it (as my mother used to say)
But now, you use as one the items of your argument over moving the planned missle bases out of Eastern Europe the "fact" that polls in Poland and the Czech Republic show that the people over there favor that very thing and can't we see that that is the best course of action because it's what the people there want?
Should we worry about what the people of Poland and the Czech Reublic think if their governments are happy with the protection and money that we are giving them in return for their support against whatever bad may happen in the region? After all, their government has the same power over their poeple that our government has over our people. Shouldn't we be worried about government-to-government relations, or is it ok to ignore a large portion of our people here on some things, and listen to a large number of their people over there on some things?
And why is it that we are supposed to ignore political realities for what are supposed to be "good" things (thought so by the "do-gooders") The point that Sidney was trying to make (I think) about the dictator not honoring contracts was that so we do something "good" - we expect the other side to do something "good" in return? And be honest about it? Why? They are more likely to think that we are naive for believing they would to begin with I think, and then take advantage of our apparent weakness.
Did Gorbachev's Perestroika come about because the US, out of the goodness of its heart, talked to the good people of the USSR and made them see that being friends was better than being enemies (something the government of Russia still has not learned completely, and therefore should be treated with suspicion in my opinion) or did Gorbachev and Perestroika emerge as a result of the pressure that the US kept on the USSR over DECADES?
Is that all the "do-gooders" in this country remember is Gorbachev and his Perestroika? Do they not remember the (relative to Gorbachev, at least) hardliners that followed and the anti-American sentiment that has started to resurface in Russia? Have they forgotten about the large number of nuclear weapons that have fallen into the hands of military leaders and possibly sold on the black market as the USSR fell and broke up? Have they forgotten a lot of what has gone on since the late 80s early 90s? Should we treat Russia as a friend, or more like an old enemy who may still have a few tricks up their sleeve?
Again, I am not arguing whether or not we should be removing those bases and the money we promised the Polish and Czech governments; I honestly don't know enough to make such an opinion, at least strongly.
I am saying that your argument that we should be nice guys, play "fair" with Russia to make them like us, and ignore the Polish and Czech government and listen to their people is flawed.
In fact, using even the "saving money" argument is a little futile in my opinion - did you see that link that someone posted related to how much saving is $100 million dollars? How much are we really saving in moving these systems out of these countries and is it worth some possible hard feelings on the part of our allies?
I honestly don't know the answer to that question either, but I think it's worth asking.
"I can understand people having an opinion on it based on what both "sides" have published."
EXACTLY AND LOTS OF WHAT IS BEING WRITTEN IS OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS, NOT SPIN.
"Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, et al. The position that you have taken seems to me to be a little simplistic and flawed and what I often see as a problem with people who consider themselves "do-gooders"
ALTHOUGH I LIKE TO DO GOOD, CALLING ME A "DO GOODER" AS SOME FELLOW POSTERS DO IS A MEANS OF INDICATING MY "SOFT" SENTIMENTS TAINT MY ANALYSIS.
I CONSIDER MYSELF A REALIST WHO FINDS IDEOLOGY DANGEROUS AND TIRESOME.
PROPOSING THAT PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENTS SHOULD WORK TO MINIMIZE CONFLICT AND MAXIMIZE COOPERATION WHILE KEEPING THEIR EYES OPEN IS GOOD, PLAIN OLD COMMON SENSE.
MY VIEWS ON THE RUSSIA, POLAND, CZECH RELATIONSHIP ARE SHARED AMONG FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS FROM COLIN POWELL, ZBIG BREZINSKI, SCOWCROFT, ETC. THEY KNOW FAR MORE THAN I DO, SO I WOULD SAY "SIMPLISTIC" ISN'T A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION, "FLAWED" IS A MATTER OF OPINION.
"You make mention of the Cold War"
YES, AND I HAVE SOME FUN AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO CLAIM REAGAN'S POLICIES WON IT. THAT CLAIM IGNORES SO MUCH OF WHAT HAPPENED TO CAUSE THE IMPLOSION OF THE SOVIET UNION THAT IS CAN CORRECTLY BE CALLED "SIMPLISTIC" AND "FLAWED."
WHAT WAS THE MAIN CAUSE WAS THAT THE COMMUNIST SYSTEM OF ECONOMIC CONTROL SELF-IMPLODED. THE INTERNAL DYSFUNCTIONALITY OF THE SYSTEM FINALLY CAUGHT UP WITH REALITY. REAGAN WAS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME TO GET SOME UNDESERVED CREDIT.
THE ONLY INFLUENCE OF THE US THAT PUSHED THE SOVIETS TOWARD COLLAPSE WAS THE INSANE MILITARY SPENDING BY BOTH ADVERSARIES. FOR EXAMPLE, EVER EXPANDING NUCLEAR ARSENALS ON EACH SIDE WHILE EACH ALREADY HAD ENOUGH BOMBS TO EVAPORATE THE WORLD SEVERAL TIMES OVER. THE SOVIETS DIDN'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO KEEP UP.
NOW OSAMA BIN LADEN IS USING A SIMILAR STRATEGY AGAINST US. HIS DISCOUNT MARKET TERRORISM THREAT HAS GUARANTEED THAT THE US NOW SPENDS MORE ON DEFENSE THAN THE COMBINED SPENDING BY ALL OUR ALLIES AND ADVERSARIES. THE FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE CAN BE MEASURED IN THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS.
THE US HAS BEEN ON THE ROAD THAT BROUGHT THE SOVIETS TO THEIR KNEES CHOKING ON WASTEFUL MILITARY SPENDING, PURSUING AN EMPIRE IT DOESN'T NEED AND CAN'T AFFORD.
THE NEVER-ENDING DRAIN ON THE US ECONOMY IS A BIG PART OF WHY DEFICITS ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND MONEY FOR CRITICAL NON-MILITARY EXPENSES ARE DWINDLING RAPIDLY.
A LOOK BACK AT WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON ON OUR SIDE AS THE SOVIET UNION SELF-DESTRUCTED IS VERY REVEALING. RECENTLY UNCOVERED DOCUMENTS PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT, ALTHOUGH REAGAN HAD CRIED "TEAR DOWN THAT WALL" IN PUBLIC - IN SECRET MARGARET THATCHER AND GEORGE H. W. BUSH, TRIED TO GET GORBIE TO KEEP THE BERLIN WALL STANDING.
SO MUCH FOR WANTING TO DESTROY THE EVIL EMPIRE. THE FUCKING HYPOCRITES. WHAT THEY WANTED WAS TO KEEP THEIR RESPECTIVE MILITARY MACHINES HUMMING, GENERATING POLITICAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL BACKING. THE LAST THING WAR HAWKS WANT IS PEACE.
"The Allies won the first against Germany? Why was there a second?
MOST HISTORIANS SAY THE MAJOR CAUSE WAS THE PEACE AGREEMENTS AFTER WWI WERE SO DAMAGING TO GERMANY, THAT THE RESENTMENT GAVE AN OPENING FOR HITLER TO COME ALONG AND APPEAL TO GERMAN NATIONALISM AND CREATE HIS FASCIST STATE.
"To me, it seems that you cavalierly dismiss one thing that IS good about keeping the plan the way it was under Bush; that is, to make our allies in Eastern Europe feel safe and to help ensure they remain our allies (and not Russia's, for example) against WHATEVER threat may arise from that region."
IF YOU READ ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUSH PLAN IT DID NOT MAKE OUR ALLIES FEEL SAFE, JUST THE OPPOSITE. IT WAS OPPOSED BY EVERY MAJOR NATO MEMBER. THEY FELT IT MADE RELATIONS BETWEEN THEM AND RUSSIA MORE DANGEROUS. THEY DON'T SHARE THE US HYSTERIA ON IRAN AND NOTE IRAN NEVER INVADED A NEIGHBOR (UNLIKE THE US)
THE RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS IN POLAND AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC BOUGHT INTO THE PLAN FOR FINANCIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL REASONS. THE CZECH PARTY WHO SUPPORTED THE BUSH DEAL LOST RECENT LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS.
WE SHOULDN'T SPEND BILLIONS TO MAKE ANYONE 'FEEL' SAFE. WE CAN'T AFFORD POLICIES BASED ON FEELINGS. THE NEW OBAMA PLAN USING PROVEN TECHNOLOGY WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS SAFER. PEOPLE WILL NOW HAVE REAL REASON TO FEEL SAFE.
"THEY remember the Soviet Union. THEY remember what it means to live next to that rumbling giant and to be affected directly. I don't think the governments, or the people who run the governments, have forgotten."
MOST OF EUROPE HAS MOVED PAST WWII. VIRTUALLY EVERY EU GOVERNMENT IS DOING MORE AND MORE BUSINESS WITH RUSSIA ESPECIALLY SEEING AS RUSSIA'S ENERGY SUPPLIES ARE CRITICAL TO THE EU ECONOMY.
POLAND IS A BIT OF AN EXCEPTION FOR OBVIOUS HISTORICAL REASONS. RUSSIA AND POLAND GET ALONG LIKE ARGENTINA AND URUGUAY ON STEROIDS!
ALSO, BUSH SAID FROM DAY ONE ON THAT THE MISSILES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA.
"You castigate those of us who really do not like the government to take our own money. To "redistribute wealth" from the rich to the poor by force."
I DON'T MEAN TO 'CASTIGATE' ANYONE, BUT I DO POINT OUT THAT AS CITIZENS OF A DEMOCRACY ALL OF US HAVE IMPLICITLY AGREED TO GIVE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY OVER US IN A RANGE OF AREAS, INCLUDING THE POWER TO TAX US. I LIKE TO PAY TAXES AS MUCH OR AS LITTLE AS THE NEXT GUY.
THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T TAKING OUR MONEY BY "FORCE." AS A CITIZEN YOU "VOLUNTEER" TO PAY TAXES. THE LEVEL YOU PAY IS DETERMINED AS ELECTED OFFICIALS GOVERN, BASED ON WHAT THEY BELIEVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT.
ELECTIONS ARE HOW THOSE OFFICIALS ARE CHOSEN. IF A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE DECISIONS THEY CAN REMOVE THEM AT THE NEXT ELECTION. IF THEY GET RE-ELECTED THAT MEANS THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THEIR DECISIONS.
SINCE THE 1930'S THE US TAX SYSTEM HAS BEEN PROGRESSIVE MEANING THE WEALTHY SUPPOSEDLY PAY MORE THAN THE POOR (ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY ALL THE TIME) AGAIN IF THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT, THEY NEED TO VOTE AND CHANGE THE LEADERS.
PEOPLE CAN ALWAYS MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY IF THEY TRULY ARE UNHAPPY AND THE ELECTORATE CONTINUES TO SUPPORT POLITICIANS WHO MAKE DECISIONS THEY DON'T LIKE.
MY PROBLEM IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO IGNORE THE LAST ELECTION WHERE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS WERE CHOSEN BY A LARGE PROPORTION OF AMERICANS. ELECTIONS HAVE WINNERS AND LOSERS. THIS TIME THE LOSERS ARE BEHAVING LIKE SOMEHOW THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN STOLEN.
I ASSURE YOU THE KIND OF ATTACKS THAT ARE BEING USED ON OBAMA ARE NOT GOING TO GET MODERATES AND INDEPENDENTS TO GO WITH THE EXTREMISTS IN 2010 OR 2012.
THE D'S MAY LOSE IF THE ECONOMY IS NOT MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT THE R'S CAN BLOW IT IF THEY SERVE UP THE UGLY STUFF THAT THE VOTERS REJECTED IN 2006 AND 2008.
"Poland and the Czech Republic. Shouldn't we be worried about government-to-government relations."
GOVERNMENTS HAVE SHORT MEMORIES. US / POLISH / CZECH RELATIONS WILL BE FINE BEFORE YOUR COFFEE GETS COLD.
"Did Gorbachev and Perestroika emerge as a result of the pressure that the US kept on the USSR over DECADES?"
ADDRESSED ABOVE.
Your argument that we should be nice guys, play "fair" with Russia to make them like us, and ignore the Polish and Czech government and listen to their people is flawed.
How much are we really saving in moving these systems out of these countries and is it worth some possible hard feelings on the part of our allies?"
I DON'T ARGUE WE SHOULD BE NICE GUYS, I COULD GIVE A FUCK IF RUSSIA LIKES US. GOVERNMENTS DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER. THEY ARE NOT TENNIS PARTNERS.
BUT WE SHOULD BE SMART GUYS. A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR MISSILE SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T WORK IS DUMB - PLAIN AND SIMPLE. DUMPING IT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH RUSSIA ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IF WE GET SOMETHING IN RETURN FROM THEM, THAT IS ICING ON THE CAKE.
IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED HOW THE POLISH AND CZECH GOVERNMENTS WERE BROUGHT INTO THE BUSH DEAL, YOU WOULD SEE THAT THEY REALLY WENT ALONG FOR FINANCIAL REASONS. THEY KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY IS DUBIOUS AT BEST, BUT FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS THEY SAW BILLIONS OF YOUR AND MY DOLLARS BEING SPREAD AROUND GETTING THEM VOTES (AND DACHAS TOO PROBABLY)
WE WILL SAVE AT LEAST $4 BILLION AS A START BY KILLING THE PLAN. WE WILL SPEND SOME MORE MONEY IN BOTH COUNTRIES ON LESS STUPID THINGS TO BUY OFF THEIR POLITICIANS AND EVERYONE WILL BE LOVEY DOVEY IN NO TIME. YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK THEY WILL! THE FIRST RULE OF FOREIGN POLICY WAS STATED BY MICHAEL CORLEONE - "IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL, IT'S ONLY BUSINESS!"
HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED HOW THE US IS CHAVEZ' NUMBER ONE OIL CUSTOMER TODAY AND HAS BEEN SINCE HE CAME TO POWER. NO AMERICAN I KNOW SAYS WE SHOULD TELL THE VENEZUELAN DUFFOS TO KEEP HIS OIL AND GO FUCK OFF.
My friend, how naive are you?With such in depth analysis and cogent discussion points as well!
''What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose''
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm
===========================================
Under the current administration, it is increasingly difficult to know who the enemy is, but what is certain is that the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is a brilliantly executed psychological warfare by way of misinformation.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18837.htmThey seem like the intellectual equivalents of the fun-house mirrors of our youth!
My friend, how naive are you?Time for new reading glasses, Sid!
Looking over my post to Queso I will guess you refer to the revelations about Thatcher and Bush wanting the Berlin Wall to stand.
I guess you wish to cast doubt on the newly discovered contemporaneous minutes from the Russian archives of the meetings and discussions I referred to, where Maggie expressed opposition to the unification of Germany to Gorbie.
The notes do not stand alone. They reinforce and are consistent with prior revelations, documents and material from German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, French President Mitterand and her own private Secretary Charles Powell.
The Russian documents provide missing details that reflect her secret attempt to derail a unified Germany that she thought was not in Britain's best interests.
Kohl and Mitterand have addressed her intransigence in their memoirs, as has Powell whose notes from that time period reflect her strong opinions.
I know that the Iron Lady is apparently suffering from Alzhiemer's Disease. Still, that doesn't fully explain the lack of any disclaimer from her people of the veracity of the archive documents. George Bush Senior hasn't issued a denial of their veracity. He still has his faculties, as far as I know.
It is not necessary to believe the Russian material, but there seems to be no reason to dismiss it, seeing as it is consistent with other verified information.
The role of historians is not to ignore documents based on one's prejudices, but to put together pieces of a puzzle to create a coherent picture based on all the information available. In that vein, the Russian documents have been accepted at face value by the British media and commentariat.
Maybe I should ask: "Please explain why you would believe anything from Bush / Cheney"?"
If the Russkies made up the Thatcher notes (putting aside why they didn't use them to discredit her before) they would be like the CIA-connected "yellow cake" guys who in 2002 doctored Nigerian official paperwork trying to make it look like Saddam bought it to make nukes.
The counterfeit documents were so poorly forged that Italian experts immediately figured it out and informed US intelligence. But that didn't stop the fraudulent information from being used by Bush / Cheney / Rice et al to sell the American public their WMD bullshit, so we could go to war against Iraq.
I again ask - Why would you or any half way sentient person believe anything from Bush / Cheney"?"
Now if Putin announces tomorrow that the sun rises in the east, should we take that as a false, ethnocentric boast?
And be careful defending Maggie here in BA, you may never get laid again!
Here are the line-ups for the Sunday talk shows this weekend:
ABC, This Week: President Barack Obama.
CBS, Face The Nation: President Barack Obama.
CNN, State Of The Union: President Barack Obama; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Fox News Sunday: ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA); FedEx CEO Fred Smith, and Moody's Economy. Com chief economist Mark Zandi.
NBC, Meet The Press: President Barack Obama; House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
I believed nothing Bush / Cheney said. I fail to see the relevance of Thatcher. Putin is the typical Russian dictato liar!We could have double teamed the opposition on the forum.
I agree Putin sucks (to be analytical)
My Thatcher reference was in response to Queso comments on the Cold War. I noted how the conservative leaders of the west were always (to be kind) schizophrenic on the Soviet challenge - they rode the fear of the Reds to power. Then they lined the pockets of their pals in the military industrial complex. Finally, their rhetoric notwithstanding, they pursued policies that were more designed to maintain the status quo than to conquer the evil adversaries. Few liberal leaders were much better.
Today, US Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) one of the most conservative members of Congress, admitted that President Obama is not a socialist!
On Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Boehner whether he agreed with RNC Chair Steele that health care reform represents a "socialist power grab" by the Democrats.
"Do you really think the president is a socialist?" Gregory asked Boehner.
"Listen, you can call it whatever you want," Boehner responded.
Gregory persisted: "Do you think the president is a socialist?"
"No!" the Ohio House representative exclaimed.
"But the head of the Republican Party is calling him that," Gregory insisted.
"I didn't call him that," Boehner responded. "I won't call him that."
Obviously Boehner doesn't read the posts on Argentina Private!
Big news here. 3.9B is not a figure I see in the news every day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_innovation
Another Obama speech.
This is definitely going our way.
I'm seeing deals made closer to 100 million and in the billions. The Russians sued bank Carnegie for 22 Billion. The worst one is Nathan M Rothschild & Sons. They should get rid of it.
They are offering amnesty to international tax dodgers.
2 men charged in NY with $80 million Ponzi scheme.
Jobs will pick up in 2010 they're saying.
Using idiotic social ideas to ascend!Sid, Jackson and company, maybe you should climb down off the window ledge!
On Sunday, Republican US Senator Olympia Snowe, from Maine, dismissed the outlandish claims of those who characterize President Obama as a big-government liberal moving heedlessly to expand Washington's role or something worse.
Snowe says: "I almost sense the opposite." She places Obama on the ideological spectrum as "more moderate than liberal."
Her portrait diverges drastically from the "radical" "socialist" "communist" "Marxist" "anti-Capitalist" "fascist" described by other Republicans and the McCarthyites in the media such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Joe Azar, Alan Keyes, and some of our AP crew.
They say: "I Takes One To Know One" so the moderate lady from Maine probably knows whereof she speaks! And together with House Republican leader Boehner's admitting Obama is no socialist, the debate now is between reasonable conservatives and the unhinged.
Several posters on the Political forum who oppose Obama's attempt to fix the broken US health care and insurance system, have claimed that every American citizen has "access" to "quality" health care because they can be treated in emergency rooms. Well, guess what? That's pure balderdash. The reality is less pretty.
A new medical study links 45,000 U. S. Deaths annually to lack of insurance. The reality is that one American dies every 12 minutes because they lack health insurance and can not get good care. The disturbing situation is detailed in a Harvard Medical School study, published in the American Journal of Public Health.
The study shows that without proper care, uninsured people are more likely to die from complications associated with preventable diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are closing or scaling back across the country as the poor economy has reduced their financial resources.
The Harvard researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.
"For any doctor. It's completely a no-brainer that people who can't get health care are going to die more from the kinds of things that health care is supposed to prevent," said Dr. James Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The Harvard researchers analyzed data on patients tracked by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.
Today, US Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) one of the most conservative members of Congress, admitted that President Obama is not a socialist!Ricardo,
I'm sure you mean to use the word "acknowledged" in the above statement.
Obviously, the word "admitted" would be used by a writer who was subliminally trying to invoke a sensation of guilt, which is clearly not the intent of Boehner's statement.
Oh, unless, of course, you specifically intended to warp the intended meaning of his statement, which would be a standard liberal practice.
Anyway, the fact that two Republican politicians declined to use the word "socialist" to describe the Messiah in a publicly broadcasted interview does not mean that he is NOT a socialist, but I understand you are clinging to any evidence you can to convince us clear-thinking individuals otherwise.
Nice try.
Thanks,
Jackson
Yep he's going on Letterman tonight. Anyone going to catch a feed tonight?
Ricardo,
I'm sure you mean to use the word "acknowledged" in the above statement.
Obviously, the word "admitted" would be used by a writer who was subliminally trying to invoke a sensation of guilt, which is clearly not the intent of Boehner's statement.
Oh, unless, of course, you specifically intended to warp the intended meaning of his statement, which would be a standard liberal practice.
Thanks,
JacksonI don't know if Boehner felt guilty, but he looks guilty all the time. It may be the bottle tan!
You say warping meanings is standard liberal practice - yah sure. Here you raise an obvious question - not of etymology, but of psychology - do you understand the concept of projection?
Just in case, here is the definition:
"Psychological projection (or projection bias) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and / or emotions, which are then ascribed to another person or people, the government, etc.
"Projection is the most profound and subtle of our psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature, it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep our selves uninformed about ourselves.
"Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humor presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any enquiry into the truth."
Ring any bells? (chuckling quietly to myself)
As for "admitted" versus "acknowledged" - that is called "a distinction without a difference" among us literate elite!
Us clear-thinking individuals otherwise.
JacksonDamn Jackson, kind of a "Holier Than Thou" statement. Never believed you to be so closed minded.
Let me tell you, I am impressed with the raw intelligence of the people who post on this board. Obviously approaching Einstein level insight.
I would not be surprised if the United States Embassy in Buenos Aires was instructed to clear out several thousand square feet of office space in order to house senior members of Argentina Private.
Sort of a think tank fueled by 200 octane pussy.
45,000 is roughly.0015% of the US population.
In 2008, 37,261 died in car crashes, which was actually down 9.7% from 2007 (41,059 deaths) and which has steadily been decreasing over time.
"Automobile Deaths" is a rough example of something we deal with every day that is close to the quanitity (if not the quality - hard to define exactly) of what are claimed as deaths that are attributed to lack of insurance.
I'm not sure that the number mentioned for lack of medical insurance deaths is enough to warrant the government getting farther into debt and expanding something like Medicare (for example) to ensure that everyone is ensured when the following are considered:
How many of those 45K eat like pigs and smoke like chimneys, take drugs (including too much alcohol) and put THEMSELVES at risk for diabetes, cardiac problems, cancer related to lungs and colon, liver and kidney problems, and so on and so on?
How many of those 45K chose not have insurance (there are those of us who chose not to - me for example)
How many of those 45K simply didn't even try to go see a doctor, even if it would have cost them something, for something simple like a check up where the doctor could have said "geez you're fat, you really should go on a diet and excerise!"
How many of those deaths were in accidents and the people involved simply did not have health insurance (I don't know where the numbers quoted came from as far as the raw data that was collated and examined)
How many of those 45K are illegal aliens?
Now, another question:
If everyday healthcare was reasonably affordable WITHOUT insurance, and insurance was only for the really BIG things that most people could not afford, would we need the government to provide a second option to provide "competition" to private industry in a vain attempt to keep costs down? Could we not just use our own judgement as to when we needed to go to the doctor, or do we really NEED health insurance to ensure that people would go to the doctor and make sure they are not dying of something preventable?
In the above question, I meant not just costs paid to the system by clients - after all, will the government really do things more efficiently and truly cost less? Or will the subsidies the government provides to keep costs down to the client really be more in line with what private industries are charging already due to things like fraud, high medical malpractice costs due to wrongly-balanced judgements, high costs of running unneccesary tests to CYA, etc? After all, without much TRUE REFORM in the medical system, how much in the BEST POSSIBLE of circumstances can the US government bring down costs?
Or is it more likely that the amount of cost the government can save will be about the amount of the profits that "for-profit" medical systems currently make, but will be offset (maybe even more so) by the inefficiency that WILL exist in a government-run system?
I believe human life is precious, but not always priceless. That is a hard thing to say, but it has to stop somewhere. If it didn't, we would never be permitted to eat anything that is unhealthy, never be allowed to breath air that has the slightest possible taint of pollutants, never be allowed outside in the daylight, or if we did drive, driving in cars like tanks to ensure we couldn't hurt ourselves, etc, etc. Of course, things like that are growing every day anyway - who the HELL gives ANYONE the right to tell someone they have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle or wear their seat belts in a car or truck if they choose to be stupid and not do so? Where does it stop? I could see a corporation requiring such things to keep their insurance costs down related to their opwn commercial interests, but not a law for everyone.
Can we stop the 35-40K deaths that occur every year via cars? Well, we could legislate cars out of existence but that would be costly. Too costly obviously. I'm not saying that legislating IN health insurance would be as costly, the legislating away cars was an extreme example of trying to keep everyone safe.
Can we say the government can step in and ensure that 100% of the people who die as a result of not having insurance will live? No way. Who knows what the real precentage point of lives saved would be.
What does that 45K really mean? I think it's more likely just another statistic that those on both sides like to use to scare the shit out of people to get their way.
And Ricardo, I don't think there is a single person on this board who really thinks health reform is unneccessary (I could be wrong!). I think most of us think that it is unrealistic to be tackling such an item in the MANNER that Obama proposes because (very short list) 1) it's not quite as big a problem as Obama and the Democrats make it out to be for the BIG MAJORITY of people in this country and 2) the way he is going about it is not going to fix anything (in many opinions, anyway) and we would rather stay with the status quo than make things worse and get more government involved where it doesn't belong.
We'd really rather see things FIXED, but that ain't likely to happen.
I commend you for adding to this thread and understand your thinking on this, but the fact that 45,000 Americans die each year who might have lived longer with insurance is just one of many, many problems with the broken US health system. It is a fatal problem for those who die and poses a moral dilemma for society as a whole.
I won't go into great detail on the intertwined and massive problems with the current system. The information is readily available online.
I will just point out that the US spends more per capita than any other industrial country on health care while leaving large numbers of people with no or inadequate care and gets worse results on a wide range of health measures.
I will also point out that the cost of US care is rising much faster than inflation and will continue to rise, unless the system is reformed - taking more and more essential resources - individual, corporate and government - away from other key priorities.
Unless change occurs the US economy will continue to struggle to right itself and stay globally competitive.
Last week, Obama provided the key points of the new system he will push to get Congress turn into legislation and send to him.
I trust this will clear up lots of confusion that has spread with the President's opponents distortions and the media focussed more on the fight than the content.
Basics.
1. If you like your insurance, you can keep it.
2. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
3. No dropped coverage when you get sick.
4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.
5. Caps out-of-pocket expenses.
6. Required coverage for preventative care.
If you don't have insurance:
1. A new insurance marketplace, the Exchange.
2. New tax credits for individuals and small business.
3. Low-cost coverage for all individuals and small businesses.
4. A public health insurance option.
For All Americans:
1. Won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront.
2. Independent medical experts to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.
3. Required coverage for preventative care.
4. Eliminates the prescription drug "Donut Hole"
5. Immediate medical malpractice reform projects
Let me tell you, I am impressed with raw intelligence of the people who post on this board. Obviously approaching Einstein level insight.
I would not be surprised if the United States Embassy in Buenos Aires was instructed to clear out several thousand square feet of office space in order to house senior members of Argentina Private.
Sort of a think tank fueled by 200 octane pussy.Careful. It could turn into a stink tank!
I don't think there is a single person on this board who really thinks health reform is unnecessary (I could be wrong! I think. It's not quite as big a problem as Obama and the Democrats make it out to be for the BIG MAJORITY of people in this country.The Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of leading US companies, that comprise nearly a third of the total value of the U. S. Stock markets and pay nearly half of all corporate income taxes paid to the federal government has issued a policy study calling on Congress to reform the American health care system.
The Key Findings include:
Without significant reforms, if current trends continue, annual health care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over the next decade, from $10,743 per employee today to $28,530 by 2019.
These runaway costs, combined with a $56 billion cost shift to payers from uncompensated care, would cripple the employer-based system that currently provides coverage for the majority of Americans and their families.
If nothing changes, by 2019, total health care spending will reach $4.4 trillion, consuming more than 20 percent of the U. S. Gross Domestic Product.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.