American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I wanted to write it, but Ben Carson beat me to it.

Washington Times, December 17,2013. To Counter Coarseness, Choose Civility (selected).

"The key to civility is thinking of others first. Civility and honesty are highly desirable traits. Those of us who can still recognizes imperfections in everyone, including ourselves, must not give up on decency, values, and godly principles of loving one's neighbor and developing one's God-given talents to the utmost. This has nothing to do with political parties, but has everything to do with the future of our nation".

"Other than Bernie Madoff and a few notable others, not many of these individuals suffered any consequences for their part in the near destruction of our economy and the shattering of the dreams of millions of Americans".

Another nail right on the forehead of those who have the mantra that Greed is Good (quite a few on AP). Carson maintains that there is nothing wrong with wealth itself when it is a natural product of creativity and industriousness.

"It is unreasonable to expect a civil and compassionate society from a culture that tolerates and often even encourages cruel and dishonest behavior from its leading commentators and leaders. Blinded by their ideology, they are incapable of seeing things from the view of others".

Because the response time was slow at the theater massacre.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/us/colorado-shooting

But, he killed himself, the deputy didn't shoot him.

[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/17/new-details-emerge-in-arapahoe-high-school-shooting/4070815/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Punter127;437111][B]Armed response, not restrictive gun laws, brought swift end to school shooting[/B]

"It was an armed deputy who stopped the Arapahoe High School gunman last week from unleashing a deadly massacre, not the expansive new gun control laws approved by Colorado Democrats in March in reaction to two mass shootings."

Once again good guys with guns prove more effective than laws.

[URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/prevention-of-school-massacre-shoots-down-argument/[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RevBS;437112]Another nail right on the forehead of those who have the mantra that Greed is Good (quite a few on AP). Carson maintains that there is nothing wrong with wealth itself when it is a natural product of creativity and industriousness.[/QUOTE]Interesting, because the greediest people I know are the lazy fucks who are sitting around encouraging their politicians to find ways to take money from those who have earned it and "redistribute" to themselves.

[I]"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."[/I]

― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.

[B][size=3]Who cares who shot the shooter?[/B][/size]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437115]Because the response time was slow at the theater massacre.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/us/colorado-shooting

But, he killed himself, the deputy didn't shoot him.

[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/17/new-details-emerge-in-arapahoe-high-school-shooting/4070815/[/URL][/QUOTE]Yes he shot himself, most of the time they do when confronted by guys with guns. The point is an armed person was the reason the shooter didn't kill more people, and the new Colorado gun laws had no effect on stopping or preventing this shooting. In this case there is no doubt he planned to kill more. From your USA Today link [b][I]“A student who killed himself in a violent attack at a Colorado school had apparently intended much more carnage..."[/I][/b]

Gun free zones attract these guys like dollars attract hookers, it crazy not to have armed guards in public places like schools.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437112]I wanted to write it, but Ben Carson beat me to it.

Washington Times, December 17,2013. To Counter Coarseness, Choose Civility (selected).


"It is unreasonable to expect a civil and compassionate society from a culture that tolerates and often even encourages cruel and dishonest behavior from its leading commentators and leaders. Blinded by their ideology, they are incapable of seeing things from the view of others".[/QUOTE]Perhaps during the next State of the Union Address if someone blew up the capital building, as in Tom Clancy's novel "Debt of Honor", it would be a good start. The only loss would be some really historic architecture. Perhaps we could get some folks elected from both sides of the isle that work for living and can really do something other than morph into career politicians!

[QUOTE=Jackson;437116]Interesting, because the greediest people I know are the lazy fucks who are sitting around encouraging their politicians to find ways to take money from those who have earned it and "redistribute" to themselves.

[I]"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."[/I]

― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.[/QUOTE]Good Poor, Bad Poor. NY Times, November 19, 2013.Timothy Egan (selected).

"The House, has passed a measure to eliminate food aid for four million Americans. At the same time, Congress has let unemployment expires for 1.3 million people. These actions have nothing to with bringing federal spending into line, and everything to do with a view that poor people are morally inferior".

Steve Sutherland, Republican Representative (Florida): The explosion of food stamps in this country is not just a fiscal issue for me. This is a defining moral issue of our time.

Rand Paul, Republican Senator (Kentucky): It would be a disservice to extend unemployment assistance to those who have been out of work for some time. It encourages them to sit at home and do nothing.

James Inhofe, Republican Senator (Oklahoma): People who capable of fully working are buying things like beer.

Jackson, fearless wealthy BA businessman: Well, you know what he said under his breath.

"No doubt, poor people drink too much beer, watch television, and have bad morals. But so do rich people. Republican representative of Florida, Trey Radal recently pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. The median income of new members of the current congress is exactly $1 million more than the typical American household. The baseline benefit under the old food stamp program works out to $1.40 a meal, and the average emergency unemployment check work out to be $300 a week. Meanwhile, a wealthy Montana farmer was getting nearly $300,000 in federal subsidies. So one person deserves a handout, the other does not.

Why? People are poor because they are WEAK. When a million Irish died during the Great Famine of the 1850s, many of the English aristocracy said that the peasants deserved to starve because their families were too big and indolent. The baronet overseeing food relief felt that the famine was God's judgement."

"And making out the poor to be lazy, or dependent, or stupid, does not make them less poor. It only make the person saying such a thing feel superior.".

Reverend, Do you believe food stamps should be used to buy beer? People should be perpetually paid not to work? Then why do you have an issue with what Rand Paul and James Inhofe said? The "subsidies to wealthy farmers" issue isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's something that's kept in effect by farm state politicians of both parties. Your statement that the median income of a new Congressman is $1 million more than the typical American household is a complete fabrication, so I suspect the other statistics quoted in the same paragraph are too. So while I would have no problem with a food stamp program providing benefits of $1.40 per meal to poor children and others legitimately unable to work, I doubt your numbers. I do agree with you that many people are on food stamps through no fault of their own. Many would come off food stamps if the economy were to improve. And that would occur more quickly if government implemented pro-growth policies instead of pursuing Obama's re-distributionist goals.

People responsible for government programs that keep people lazy, dependent and stupid are the ones who are morally reprehensible. More helpless people in poverty means more votes for Democrats. So keep them dependent on government programs, and make sure the teachers unions look out for their own best interests instead of the students'. Democrats want to keep the poor WEAK.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437124]Reverend, Do you believe food stamps should be used to buy beer? People should be perpetually paid not to work? Then why do you have an issue with what Rand Paul and James Inhofe said? The "subsidies to wealthy farmers" issue isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's something that's kept in effect by farm state politicians of both parties. Your statement that the median income of a new Congressman is $1 million more than the typical American household is a complete fabrication, so I suspect the other statistics quoted in the same paragraph are too. So while I would have no problem with a food stamp program providing benefits of $1.40 per meal to poor children and others legitimately unable to work, I doubt your numbers. I do agree with you that many people are on food stamps through no fault of their own. They would come off food stamps if the economy were to improve. And that would occur more quickly if government implemented pro-growth policies instead of pursuing Obama's re-distributionist goals.

People responsible for government programs that keep people lazy, dependent and stupid are the ones who are morally reprehensible. More helpless people in poverty means more votes for Democrats. So keep them dependent on government programs, and make sure the teachers unions look out for their own best interests instead of the students'. Democrats want to keep the poor WEAK.[/QUOTE]There are kernels of validity in your response, but in general, it is the same emotional rhetoric that has been ingrained into your thinking that you and the upper classes are superior in morality than the lower classes. The poor will always remain poor because of poor choices, but also because, they will always have less choices.

The statistics were copied from the NY Times article, so while you can challenge the figures, it does not take away that Congress is nothing but a bedding session between legislators and interest groups today. As a result, it is a roadway to eventual wealth for most legislators as they pave the way for the interest groups to plunder & pillage (for lack of a better phrase).

The "beer" quote is so ridiculous. Not that it isn't true, but because "fraud" and "cheating" are now part of the American fabric. For example, whilst railing against illegal immigration, so many are customers of products and establishments that uses illegal workers, or even use them themselves. Where is the outrage!

We used to laugh at Third World Countries and their blatant corruption. Corruption in American is so sophisticated that they are able to enact legislation to decriminalize illegal activity. As Carson asks, who went to jail beside Madoff? How about Cheney, Halliburton, and the Pentagon?

Come by Bangkok, I'll arrange a few de-programming sesseions.

P.S. Just an opinion, nothing personal here.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437127]There are kernels of validity in your response, but in general, it is the same emotional rhetoric that has been ingrained into your thinking that you and the upper classes are superior in morality than the lower classes. The poor will always remain poor because of poor choices, but also because, they will always have less choices.
[/QUOTE]That's absolutely not true. Neither I nor anyone else on here believes morality is a function of how much money you make. Getting back to the same point both you and Doppelganger made recently, politicians and those who sway them are the biggest culprits. It's politicians who provide $300,000 in subsidies to a wealthy Montana farmer. And politicians who give an able-bodied individual with ample job opportunities 96 weeks of unemployment benefits. The politicians are more to blame than the farmer or the slacker, although I wouldn't look up to either.

Also, "The poor will always remain poor" is not a given. Better education and economic growth would improve that.

Harry Reid interceded for foreign investor's visas for the SLS casino being built in Las Vegas, is a prime example of an "unappealable" denial of an investor visa by Homeland Security being reversed by a Democrat for political and economic reasons.

[URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/harry-reids-visa-pressure-cooker/?page=all[/URL]

I do not imply this does not happen on both sides of the isle because it most certainly does and we only hear about the ones who are caught which is probably only a fraction of the number what actually transpire. Term limits for the House and Senate would go a long way to eliminating many of these abuses.

One other thing we are losing site of in this argument are the multitude of created agencies run by unelected bureaucrats whose regulations have the effect of law, HHS and EPA come to mind.

Lazy lawmakers too busy to enact the actual regulations for the laws they pass, hand off this duty to the bureaucrats to propagate the actual regulations. Perhaps if the lawmakers had to think through the regulations of laws PRIOR to enacting them we would not have many of the laws now on the books.

Term limits for the House and Senate is only half the issue, the other half is to reduce and / or eliminate many of the agencies staffed by unelected, faceless bureaucrats who remain in place from election to election and administration to administration.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436962]I agree we need to hear more.

I have been there, I am not clear on what our problems are to theirs.

I know their's is really bad.

The only impeachment should be the Do Nothing Congress. But that is to the Voters.[/QUOTE]

New York Times, Thomas Fuller, December 16 & 22,2013 (selectively condensed).

"In one of the more provocative moves of Thailand's month-long political crisis, anti-government protesters marching through Bangkok Sunday vowed to disrupt the coming elections in their campaign to rid the country of its most influential political family. We will shut down the country, we will block everyone casting ballots, vows Suthep Thaugsuban, the main protest leader. As with the division of the red and blue states of the United States, Thailand's geographical divides have become even sharper as the crisis continued."

"In today's fractured Thailand, a majority wants more democracy, but a minority including many rich and powerful people, is petrified by the thought of it. What unites the protestors is the desire to dismantle Prime Minister Yingluck's Pheu Thai party, which has won every election since 2001. The anti-democratic ideas put forward by protest leaders are in jarring contrast with the image of Thailand as a cosmopolitan country open to the world.

"Thailand today is a much richer than two decades ago, but it is also more divided. On the face of it, the crux of the protest appears to be a classic power between a dominant majority and a minority frustrated by its losing streak in elections and its inability to influence national policies in a winner-take-all, in a highly centralized system."

You can only laugh quietly to yourself, the absurdity of the human race. We think we are so clever, but we are no different from the rats in the sewers. I escape to Thailand, but I could not escape Starbucks and the Tea Party.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437142]New York Times, Thomas Fuller, December 16 & 22,2013 (selectively condensed).

"In one of the more provocative moves of Thailand's month-long political crisis, anti-government protesters marching through Bangkok Sunday vowed to disrupt the coming elections in their campaign to rid the country of its most influential political family. We will shut down the country, we will block everyone casting ballots, vows Suthep Thaugsuban, the main protest leader. As with the division of the red and blue states of the United States, Thailand's geographical divides have become even sharper as the crisis continued."

"In today's fractured Thailand, a majority wants more democracy, but a minority including many rich and powerful people, is petrified by the thought of it. What unites the protestors is the desire to dismantle Prime Minister Yingluck's Pheu Thai party, which has won every election since 2001. The anti-democratic ideas put forward by protest leaders are in jarring contrast with the image of Thailand as a cosmopolitan country open to the world.

"Thailand today is a much richer than two decades ago, but it is also more divided. On the face of it, the crux of the protest appears to be a classic power between a dominant majority and a minority frustrated by its losing streak in elections and its inability to influence national policies in a winner-take-all, in a highly centralized system."

You can only laugh quietly to yourself, the absurdity of the human race. We think we are so clever, but we are no different from the rats in the sewers. I escape to Thailand, but I could not escape Starbucks and the Tea Party.[/QUOTE]Yes, there are similarities between the ruling Pheu Thai party and the American Democrat Party. Pheu Thai is fiscally irresponsible and buys votes from rice farmers, factory workers, etc. But its populist agenda is a disguise for its true purpose, which is doing the bidding of a billionaire businessman (Thaksin Shinawatra).

You're not going to see me defending their opposition, the Thai Democrats. I suspect you're trying to make an analogy between the Yellow Shirts, being a subset of the Thai Democrat Party that has taken to the streets to try to overthrow the government, and the Tea Party. If so, the analogy is ridiculous. In terms of their strategies, the Yellow Shirts have much more in common with the Occupy Wall Street movement, of which I think you approve, than with the Tea Party. The Tea Party, however you define it, has never gone beyond parliamentary procedure in its attempts to return the federal government to fiscal sanity. The Tea Party has never and will never attempt to overthrow the government with massive demonstrations.

[B][size=3]Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said on Sunday that Obamacare's endless problems could create a "complete meltdown" and endanger Democrats' control of the U.S. Senate.[/B][/size]

"If it's so much more expensive than what we anticipated and if the coverage is not as good as what we had, you've got a complete meltdown at that time," Manchin said on CNN's State of the Union. "If it falls of its own weight, if basically the cost becomes more than we can absorb, absolutely.

[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/22/Dem-Senator-Obamacare-May-Face-Complete-Meltdown-Give-GOP-Senate[/URL]

Forget about Thailand lets talk about something that matters.

Because of age, height weight no one wants to wtie health for me. I have basically catastrophe coverage $12,000 in-net work& $24,000. out of network deuctible and max out of pockets at a cost of $1970 per month with a $5,000,000. life time cap. I shopped and shopped with multiple agents year after year. The website is horrible so my agent took care of it.about $1000 per month for platinum plan with in net work amlost no payments by me except for non-fomulary drugs[whichiwillbytviaCanada]. out of network is not good, but i am paying more premium for a very large national network--all my doctors, the locale medical school faculty and the best locale hostitals all participate. It took awhile to shop as the plans are complex and the network in very important.

I think every one agrees that there needs to be fine tuning and fixing. Unfortunately there is not the political will to fine tune and fix.

Read an interesting opinion piece about education and the USA's ability to create a productive work force.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-cant-we-do-better.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/URL]

The comments are as interesting as the piece.

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;437214]Read an interesting opinion piece about education and the USA's ability to create a productive work force.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-cant-we-do-better.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/URL]

The comments are as interesting as the piece.[/QUOTE]Shocked! I am shocked to hear there is a problem with government managed education. How can this be?

Don B.

If the locale government does not supply education, does everyone home school? Religious institutions? Privatize?

How do we motivate more students to want to learn. Maybe we give up and just have an undereducated " serf" class who live on the margins of society? Some might say that already exists?

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;437168]Because of age, height weight no one wants to wtie health for me. I have basically catastrophe coverage $12,000 in-net work& $24,000. out of network deuctible and max out of pockets at a cost of $1970 per month with a $5,000,000. life time cap. I shopped and shopped with multiple agents year after year. The website is horrible so my agent took care of it.about $1000 per month for platinum plan with in net work amlost no payments by me except for non-fomulary drugs[whichiwillbytviaCanada]. out of network is not good, but i am paying more premium for a very large national network--all my doctors, the locale medical school faculty and the best locale hostitals all participate. It took awhile to shop as the plans are complex and the network in very important.

I think every one agrees that there needs to be fine tuning and fixing. Unfortunately there is not the political will to fine tune and fix.[/QUOTE]Hey MB,

Just remember, in order for you to get coverage at that price, someone else will be required to pay more than their risk profile would otherwise require.

Do you really believe that younger/healthier individuals and/or the country's taxpayers should be subsidizing your health care?

Thanks,

Jax

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;437218]How do we motivate more students to want to learn.[/QUOTE]I know, let's tell them that the government is going to take 50% of what they will earn after they finish school and start working. That should start a fire under them.

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;437218]Maybe we give up and just have an undereducated "serf" class who live on the margins of society? Some might say that already exists?[/QUOTE]Just continue giving them free money to stay home and fuck off, and that's exactly what you'll have: A "serf" class of permanent Democrat voters.

Of course, in the Middle Ages serfs actually had to work if they wanted to eat, but we wouldn't want the facts to obscure your point.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437219]Hey MB,

Just remember, in order for you to get coverage at that price, someone else will be required to pay more than their risk profile would otherwise require.

Do you really believe that younger/healthier individuals and/or the country's taxpayers should be subsidizing your health care?

Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]Jackson-.

Do you believe that citizens of the United States should be simply left for dead if they cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare at "market rates"? Incredibly hypocritical for our very own Jackson to be complaining about government subsidized healthcare, when he himself benefits INCREDIBLY from subsidized healthcare here in Argentina! Not only does Jackson plop himself down as a guest in Argentina, contributing nothing, he "leeches" off the government by benefitting from subsidized electricity, gas, water, public transportation and medical school. His "private" medical services are as cheap as they are in Argentina as a direct result of government subsidies; those doctor fees would be a hell of a lot higher if the doctors had not gone to medical school for "free", the hospital was paying market rates for utilities, and the public transportation was non. Subsidized.

All this leeching and non contributing by Jackson in a foreign country, and he has the GALL to rail against TAX PAYING US CITIZENS benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country!

Suerte,

RH.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437219]Hey MB,

Just remember, in order for you to get coverage at that price, someone else will be required to pay more than their risk profile would otherwise require.

Do you really believe that younger/healthier individuals and/or the country's taxpayers should be subsidizing your health care?

Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]Hey I have an idea, if you don't want government interfering in your life, move to Afghanistan, Sudan etc. There are no government services or tax collection there.

[QUOTE=QualityTime;437222]Hey I have an idea, if you don't want government interfering in your life, move to Afghanistan, Sudan etc. There are no government services or tax collection there.[/QUOTE]As I have pointed out previously, this error is know as the False Alternative".

Don B.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437221]Jackson-.

Do you believe that citizens of the United States should be simply left for dead if they cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare at "market rates"? Incredibly hypocritical for our very own Jackson to be complaining about government subsidized healthcare, when he himself benefits INCREDIBLY from subsidized healthcare here in Argentina! Not only does Jackson plop himself down as a guest in Argentina, contributing nothing, he "leeches" off the government by benefitting from subsidized electricity, gas, water, public transportation and medical school. His "private" medical services are as cheap as they are in Argentina as a direct result of government subsidies; those doctor fees would be a hell of a lot higher if the doctors had not gone to medical school for "free", the hospital was paying market rates for utilities, and the public transportation was non. Subsidized.

All this leeching and non contributing by Jackson in a foreign country, and he has the GALL to rail against TAX PAYING US CITIZENS benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country!

Suerte,

RH.[/QUOTE]Here, here! Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?

What does Jax do in BA other than own a house where he rents out rooms???

[QUOTE=Jackson;437219]Hey MB,

Just remember, in order for you to get coverage at that price, someone else will be required to pay more than their risk profile would otherwise require.

Do you really believe that younger/healthier individuals and/or the country's taxpayers should be subsidizing your health care?

Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]Hey Jax, your same analogy would apply to buying car insurance. Safe older drivers subsidize younger drivers. How about subsidizing public trnsportation?

With all respect, the essence of insurance is pooling risk for the greater good. I cut my premiums down to $12,000 with very good in. Network coverage and only catestrophic coverage out of net work. I truly believe that single payer is the only rationale long term solution. The ACA is a variation on sen robert doles' counter proposal to clinton's health care solutions.

Robert dole was a great senator who came up with a market solution.

Ted cruz is just not of the same stature. Yes, there needs to be fine tuning on the ACA. The lobbyists sliced and diced this one real bad.

The political will to have a function health care sysem does not exist in the congress.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437221]Jackson-.

Do you believe that citizens of the United States should be simply left for dead if they cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare at "market rates"? Incredibly hypocritical for our very own Jackson to be complaining about government subsidized healthcare, when he himself benefits INCREDIBLY from subsidized healthcare here in Argentina! Not only does Jackson plop himself down as a guest in Argentina, contributing nothing, he "leeches" off the government by benefitting from subsidized electricity, gas, water, public transportation and medical school. His "private" medical services are as cheap as they are in Argentina as a direct result of government subsidies; those doctor fees would be a hell of a lot higher if the doctors had not gone to medical school for "free", the hospital was paying market rates for utilities, and the public transportation was non. Subsidized.

All this leeching and non contributing by Jackson in a foreign country, and he has the GALL to rail against TAX PAYING US CITIZENS benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country!

Suerte,

RH.[/QUOTE]Wrong on every count, as usual.

1. The [I]"citizens of the United States"[/I] were not [I]"simply left for dead if they [could not] afford to pay for their own healthcare at "market rates"[/I] before ObamaCare, so what makes you think they'd be [I]"simply left for dead"[/I] without ObamaCare?

I challenge you to provide a miniscule 3 cases of persons being [I]"left for dead"[/I] in the 5 years preceding the ObamaCare roll-out.

2. My health care policy here in Argentina is with a private hospital and is most definitely not subsidized. In addition, no utility bill I receive here in Argentina includes any line-item subsidy, including my electric bill.

3. Without detailing my business activities here in Argentina, Rock knows fully well that his [I]"contributing nothing"[/I] comment is completely erroneous. In addition, given that I pay Argentina import taxes, Argentine sales taxes, Argentine utility taxes, Argentine property taxes, and Argentine income taxes, one could hardly claim that I am "[I]leeching[/I]" by living here.

Once again, facts aren't important to liberals, only emotion is important.

Thanks,

Jax

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;437227]Ted cruz is just not of the same stature.[/QUOTE]Neither is Obama.

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;437227]Yes, there needs to be fine tuning on the ACA. The lobbyists sliced and diced this one real bad.[/QUOTE]The lobbyists? What are you talking about? The Dems listened to the lobbyists that were working for their own supporters, and they produced exactly the law they wanted. The Dems completely ignored the Republicans and the lobbyists working for conservative interests.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=QualityTime;437224]What does Jax do in BA other than own a house where he rents out rooms???[/QUOTE]How liberal of you to attack the messenger.

Nevertheless, I'm still trying to understand your criticism. Are you suggesting that because (as you suppose) I rent rooms to personal acquaintances that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion as to where my tax money is being spent?

Anyway, if you knew me personally you'd know how uninformed your comment is.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=QualityTime;437225]Hey Jax, your same analogy would apply to buying car insurance. Safe older drivers subsidize younger drivers.[/QUOTE]That's not true at all, but it wouldn't make any difference to me because car insurance is sold and purchased in the public marketplace, the cost of which is most definitely not subsidized by any government.

In addition, I'm having difficulty understanding your contention that the older drivers are subsidizing the younger drivers, given that older drivers generally pay less for car insurance than younger drivers.

Or is this typical liberal logic that falls apart after the 2nd question?

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437229]
2. My health care policy here in Argentina is with a private hospital and is most definitely not subsidized. In addition, no utility bill I receive here in Argentina includes any line-item subsidy, including my electric bill.



Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]Jackson-.

Your "private" health care policy is without a doubt subsidized by the Argentine government; 90% of the doctors working in "private" medical facilities went to "public" medical school (typically la UBA, "free", I.e. SUBSIDIZED tuition); had these doctors gone to "private" medical school and needed to take out loans, they would have to charge you significantly more for their services. YOUR fees are less because the Argentine government SUBSIDIZED the education of the doctors who attend to YOU. Furthermore, all hospital employees use public transportation which, of course, is HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED; if these hospital employees were paying market rates for public transportation they would need to be paid higher salaries, which of course would lead to higher rates for YOU, again YOU benefiting from government SUBSIDIES. In addition, ALL the utilities at the hospitals are SUBSIDIZED which, of course, helps keep rates low directly benefiting you.

I know for a fact that at least some (possibly most) of your utility bills have a line item subsidy included on the bill.

Suerte,

RH.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437236]Jackson-.

Your "private" health care policy is without a doubt subsidized by the Argentine government; 90% of the doctors working in "private" medical facilities went to "public" medical school (typically la UBA, "free", I.e. SUBSIDIZED tuition); had these doctors gone to "private" medical school and needed to take out loans, they would have to charge you significantly more for their services. YOUR fees are less because the Argentine government SUBSIDIZED the education of the doctors who attend to YOU. Furthermore, all hospital employees use public transportation which, of course, is HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED; if these hospital employees were paying market rates for public transportation they would need to be paid higher salaries, which of course would lead to higher rates for YOU, again YOU benefiting from government SUBSIDIES. In addition, ALL the utilities at the hospitals are SUBSIDIZED which, of course, helps keep rates low directly benefiting you.

I know for a fact that at least some (possibly most) of your utility bills have a line item subsidy included on the bill.

Suerte,

RH.[/QUOTE]In the fantasy Republic of Argentina, when the govbermint says its "subsidizing" your bill.. What that really means is the stupid SOB's in the casa rosada have said that the electric company may not raise its rates. They receive NO money. In 14 years my electric bill went up for the first time last year. What happens is the electric companies can not afford to maintain the system nor stock replacement materials in case of a emergency. This is why there are so many problems now. Not to mention, no one wants to build more generating plants if they can not recoup the money invested{TCS. Ellipses}.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437236]Jackson-.

Your "private" health care policy is without a doubt subsidized by the Argentine government; 90% of the doctors working in "private" medical facilities went to "public" medical school (typically la UBA, "free", I.e. SUBSIDIZED tuition); had these doctors gone to "private" medical school and needed to take out loans, they would have to charge you significantly more for their services. YOUR fees are less because the Argentine government SUBSIDIZED the education of the doctors who attend to YOU. Furthermore, all hospital employees use public transportation which, of course, is HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED; if these hospital employees were paying market rates for public transportation they would need to be paid higher salaries, which of course would lead to higher rates for YOU, again YOU benefiting from government SUBSIDIES. In addition, ALL the utilities at the hospitals are SUBSIDIZED which, of course, helps keep rates low directly benefiting you.

I know for a fact that at least some (possibly most) of your utility bills have a line item subsidy included on the bill.

Suerte,

RH.[/QUOTE]Where do subsidies come from?

Don B.

Miami Bob, What's difficult to understand is how the USA is at the top of the charts in terms of how much we pay, per capita after adjusting for purchasing power, for education and health care. Actually for health care we pay 50% more than any other country. Yet we don't live as long, have more health problems, and have poorly educated children. How is throwing more federal government money at problems going to solve them?

I buy one non. Formulary medication mail order from england. It arrives from England in a ox that says made in the USA. In the USA, walmat charges almost $500, from England including express shipping it costs $248.

The USA can be fixed to a certain extent, but the political will must exist. Campaign financing must be reformed. The current system of pack finacing to ensure corp free speach has produced many unanticipated consequences. The tea party financed my the koch brothers, not any grass roots movements of millions of people sending in $5, has been primarying traditional conservatives to replace them with tea party folks. Main stream republicans and dems are both forced to vote their doners' will to ensure money for re. Election.

MB the answer is simple but you choose to ignore it by looking at the effects and not the cause of the problem, which is career politicians. The Founding Fathers did not intend for folks to come to Washington and STAY, but to come serve a term then return to their "day job" back home. The simple answer is term limits for both the House and Senate, but I doubt the political will exists.

Mongers-.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-31/obamacare-rallies-from-botched-debut-as-sign-ups-reach-2-million.html[/URL]

Two million now enrolled in "Obamacare".

[QUOTE=Jackson;437231]How liberal of you to attack the messenger.

Nevertheless, I'm still trying to understand your criticism. Are you suggesting that because (as you suppose) I rent rooms to personal acquaintances that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion as to where my tax money is being spent?

Anyway, if you knew me personally you'd know how uninformed your comment is.

Thanks,
.
Jax.[/QUOTE]Jax, of course everyone is entitled to an opinion!. I was responding to RH's comments about you where he basically said you were a non contributing resident of Argentina. I am wrong after I read your response to RH. I know this blog is good for discussion and it can get really interesting. You obviously do not like Obama Care or his other policies. Is that that the reason why you live in Argentina as opposed to the US?

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;437240]I buy one non. Formulary medication mail order from england. It arrives from England in a ox that says made in the USA. In the USA, walmat charges almost $500, from England including express shipping it costs $248.

The USA can be fixed to a certain extent, but the political will must exist. Campaign financing must be reformed. The current system of pack finacing to ensure corp free speach has produced many unanticipated consequences. The tea party financed my the koch brothers, not any grass roots movements of millions of people sending in $5, has been primarying traditional conservatives to replace them with tea party folks. Main stream republicans and dems are both forced to vote their doners' will to ensure money for re. Election.[/QUOTE]We now have a political system where CORPORATIONS control the government, and in turn, the people. On this board, we have people demanding for smaller government, yet at the same time, defending BIG BUSINESS and their practices. How dysfunctional can you be? The only issue we should be concern about is good government (as in Thailand and elsewhere). There is no long term planning or strategies anymore. It's all about winning the next election. And really, if you look closely, the "free market" upon which America was built, is not so "free" anymore.

So where is this wave taking us? This is a cycle of evolving natural states. Following ABUNDANCE (after World War II), comes GREED (70's, 80's), then CORRUPTION (now). Then COLLAPSE. Finally, there will be RECOVERY, and then the whole cycle will begin again. Just look at all the great empires, it's the same story. And the American Empire will be no different. UNLESS?

Not to worry, I don't think most of us will live to see the United States of America reborn as a series of smaller nation states. The golden era still have enough luster to see us, and in particular, me, out in comfortable fashion. Tomorrow, I am going to take out some of the 25% profit that the Dow made in 2013.

P.S. This is an opinion piece based on several articles I have been reading of which I have not credited. Originally, I was just going to write about Corporate Greed, and the prices that MB had to pay for his drugs. But then, we will have the usual chorus of how much the drug companies spend on research & innovation, and the justification for bankrupting us.

Not been here for quite some time, shame what has evolved. You get what you reap. RH thinks two million signed up for Obamacare, not accurately pointing out that over half are medicaid recipients, what is the color of the sky in your world. Spoken like a 30 year old who hasn't been resident in the US for many years. Thanks for playing! I only ask one question, who pays for all this, at the end of the day, After reading this thread, there appears to be no mention of the millions that have been cancelled because their plans didn't cover "pediatric dentistry".

More to come in September 2014. Enjoy being out of touch with America boys.

Monger on Dudes.

Toymann out!

[QUOTE=QualityTime;437243]Jax, of course everyone is entitled to an opinion!. I was responding to RH's comments about you where he basically said you were a non contributing resident of Argentina. I am wrong after I read your response to RH. I know this blog is good for discussion and it can get really interesting. You obviously do not like Obama Care or his other policies. Is that that the reason why you live in Argentina as opposed to the US?[/QUOTE]You are not wrong; Jackson is in fact a non. Contributing resident of Argentina and he benefits enormously from government subsidies even though he refuses to admit so. Disclaimer: I freely admit that I also benefit significantly from government subsidies in Argentina, however, I pay about $100,000 USD in taxes annually to the Argentine government and employ many dozens of people, so at least I contribute.