American Politics during the Obama Presidency

IMHO, most liberals I know wants to do "good", but seldom with their own money and commitment.

On the other hand, being born with equal rights does not mean that we are born with equal opportunites. We do not get to choose where we are born, or who our parents are, etc. Right from the start, we are not equal. Many conservatives like to think they made it on their own efforts, that everybody should be able to do so. Not true, and so, "equalling the field" is a worthwhile concept for goverments. Not through prefernce policies but fiscal policies for taxes and benefits, education and community support.

American moral degeneration is a subject that we pretend not to exist. But it's implications have led to the swamp that we find ourselves in today. It exists in every economic strata.

Not preaching, but my 2 cents.

Black Shirt, there was a neat quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher about this:

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money."

According to snopes.com this is a simplification of a statement she made in 1976. But it's a neat encapsulization of a real circumstance - that of the "social reformers" who want, expect, and demand that you "do good" by paying for the "social reforms" they advocate.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]You're kind of slow aren't you? I think I have stated in unequivocal terms that this is the case. My last post was on point to this fact. You have provided nothing other than a weak deflection of an excellent point (which, given the fact that you are dead wrong is probably as good as anyone could expect)[/QUOTE]I presented the distinction between reducing and eliminating inequality, and you shifted away to your old tired story about teaching a man to fish. And I still addressed your point, but you tucked it into your next quote, ignored it and claimed I was deflecting.

Call me slow, I'll call you shifty.

What is most fascinating though is this belief you have that liberals want to eliminate inequality. So forgive me, but I need to confirm this just one last time. And let's be clear what this means in terms of economic inequality:

- That liberals would equalize pay so that everyone earned the same amount, or, if this were not possible, they would adopt tax / rebate policies to make after-tax earnings the same for all. Or they would come up with some other mechanism to ensure wealth was evenly distributed. There would be no more rich, middle class and poor - all would be the same.

I promise for the last time, could you please confirm you believe this is the intention of Obama and other liberals in the US?

[QUOTE=Esten]I presented the distinction between reducing and eliminating inequality, and you shifted away to your old tired story about teaching a man to fish. And I still addressed your point, but you tucked it into your next quote, ignored it and claimed I was deflecting.[/QUOTE]Are you pulling my johnson? Give us freaking bone here and provide just one fact or detail.

[quote=]Call me slow, I'll call you shifty.[/QUOTE]Just don't call me late for dinner.

[quote=]What is most fascinating though is this belief you have that liberals want to eliminate inequality.[/QUOTE]I never said that. I said that they masquerade behind the "promise" to eliminate inequality (except in their own cases) using other people's money. What they "want" is to further ensconce themselves in power and lavish riches upon themselves.

[quote=]So forgive me, but I need to confirm this just one last time. And let's be clear what this means in terms of economic inequality:

- That liberals would equalize pay so that everyone earned the same amount, or, if this were not possible, they would adopt tax / rebate policies to make after-tax earnings the same for all. Or they would come up with some other mechanism to ensure wealth was evenly distributed. There would be no more rich, middle class and poor - all would be the same.[/QUOTE]That is more commie (or extreme liberalism) again, this is a false objective of liberals to garner additional power and further enrich themselves.

[quote=]I promise for the last time, could you please confirm you believe this is the intention of Obama and other liberals in the US?[/QUOTE]Do you have any level of literacy or are you having a blind, mono-lingual chica read to the posts to you?

I believe that Obama is a Marxist and that he is exploiting this false objective (among many others) to enslave millions of Americans (via dependency upon the federal govt for all of their needs) garner additional power, further enrich himself and punish America for what he considers to be its foibles.

If you need further clarification on what I think of the Commie in Chief, let me know.

While the world's top economic analysts, theorists and decision-makers were meeting in Jackson, Wyoming trying to figure out how to get the globe out of the mess its in, they suffered from not having the sophisticated thinking that regularly appears on this post.

The discussions in Jackson made it crystal clear that the underlying theories about economics seem to be at a dead end. No one knows what is actually wrong or how to fix it.

The Keynesians are stymied that the massive spending by governments around the world (by the way guys it wasn't just that tan socialist in DC who tried it) has not produced the expected results.

The Friedman and Hayek acolytes who say cut government spending, lower taxes on the well-off and eliminate regulations, make no guarantee that we couldn't fall right back into the abyss, if their advice becomes global policy. They acknowledge that things are going to suck for a very long time, except for the people on the top and that's cool with them.

What drives them all nuts is how China - by ignoring every economic concept known to western man - is chugging along, as others fall by the wayside.

I would be more worried, if I hadn't read right here on these pages, the wise insights and prescriptions of the assembled Argentine Private economic gurus who know what's up (or at least that's what they tell us - incessantly I might add!

So I say out with Summers and Geithner and let's send the AP gang to DC to get things straight. Too bad, but Esten has disqualified himself by revealing his socialist leanings, no matter how nice a guy he is. But Jackson, Wild man, Stan, Argento, Black Shirt, Alamo and, if we can find Sidney, could be the new saviors of the US economy!

Lots of what you all write makes as much sense as a Glenn Beck blackboard lecture on the history of the Weimar Republic and its part in today's global imbalances! And think how popular he is!

I can see you guys on the Washington Mall unveiling the "Mongers Road Map To Economic Recovery." It would be so, so exciting!

Walleye's response "I never said that" contradicts his earlier statements "in unequivocal terms" that liberals "sure as hell are trying and will continue to try" to eliminate inequality. Then he shifts to liberals having a "promise" to eliminate inequality, but this new argument is equally absurd; Dems would never get elected if this was a known position. Either way, his most recent comments confirm without doubt his belief in far-out political theories which are unsubstantiated with available information and data. I used to think he was kidding or exagerrating at times, but I was wrong.

There is an important lesson here: [I]one should not confuse wit and knowledge with an informed and sound understanding.[/i]

Sorry Walleye I am moving on. It is more than not being able to take you seriously, because you are serious. I cannot reconcile some of your beliefs with anything other than an impaired mental process, or at best a stark ignorance of news and events.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Gee Esten, the "right wing" media? I just love it when you use this term. The left has had the major media outlets in their pocket for years and they completely tanked for Obama in 08, yet suddenly one media outlet (Fox) at least attempts to be fair and perhaps a little "right" so they are branded the hateful "right wing media". [/QUOTE]Fox News is Fair and Balanced.... half the time. The other half is a mix of spin, misinformation and full throttle bashing. There was a beauty on Fox News today, and I don't mean Tracy Byrnes. It was a video segment called "Obama Mulls Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts" and started with the following narrative:

[I]"Americans are bracing for the largest tax hike when the Bush tax cuts expire in January. Now, the tide may be turning. Fresh off of his Martha's Vinyard vacation, President Obama may now want to extend the tax cuts, at least for the middle class. Only for the middle class. It all has to do with the elections of course."[/i]

LOL..... as if this was some new development! Don't tell me you don't see the huge lie Fox is spreading here.

[QUOTE=Esten]Walleye's response "I never said that" contradicts his earlier statements "in unequivocal terms" that liberals "sure as hell are trying and will continue to try" to eliminate inequality.[/QUOTE]I hope when you read my earlier comments you didn't attribute altruistic motivation on behalf of those trying to 'eliminate' inequality.

[quote=]Then he shifts to liberals having a "promise" to eliminate inequality,[/QUOTE]How could it ever be more than a promise since liberalism has never delivered on any of its purported benefits?

[quote=]but this new argument is equally absurd; Dems would never get elected if this was a known position.[/QUOTE]If you do not believe that "striving to eliminate inequality" isn't a primary component of the tripe that the left has been serving up over the last 40 years, you are even less observant than I originally thought.

[quote=]Either way, his most recent comments confirm without doubt his belief in far-out political theories which are unsubstantiated with available information and data.[/QUOTE]Why cast a blanket? A smart fella like you ought to be able to site specific examples and prove your point (if you ever manage to have one)

[quote=]I used to think he was kidding or exagerrating at times, but I was wrong.[/QUOTE]I used to exaggerate and use sarcasm, however, out of respect for your limited interpretive capacity, I toned it down a little.

[quote=]There is an important lesson here: [I]one should not confuse wit and knowledge with an informed and sound understanding.[/i][/QUOTE]I am certain that no one has made that mistake with you.

[quote=]Sorry Walleye I am moving on.[/QUOTE]I'm getting misty.

[quote=]It is more than not being able to take you seriously, because you are serious. I cannot reconcile some of your beliefs with anything other than an impaired mental process, or at best a stark ignorance of news and events.[/QUOTE]That is right out of the Obama Nov. '10 handbook: "We are totally screwed this November. The voters are on to our hollow promises, moral and ethical lapses and complete lack understanding of basic economic principles. Therefore, we need to get out the message to the voters that they are too stupid to understand the brilliance of what we have done these past nineteen months. Only a mental patient would question Obamacare and what it means for everyone (except those lucky enough to get the good stuff we get here in the upper echelons of the govt) So get out there, shoot the messenger, denigrate those stupid voters, tell them that they are mentally deficient and if all else fails to convince them that we are right, then there is no question that they are racists!"

I heard that there was a shootout at OK corral at high noon.

Sorry, I meant on Argentina Private.

I am sure you find this "inaccurate" but I don't see it that way. Either he did or did not call for keeping some of the cuts. The answer is yes. Why now? I think it is pretty clear to garner political support during an election cycle.

Actually several Democratic incumbents are calling for a "temporary" extension of the Bush Tax Cuts or specific sections of the cuts as well as Obama. Call me cynical but I can see this only as an election year ruse to soften the heavy blow the Democrats are about to take at the polls on Nov. 2nd as they never mentioned it until they were in trouble with the voters. Point of fact the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts were cited as increasing revenue to the Fed Gov in the ObamaCare bill to offset its costs as well as cuts in reimbursement to Medicare providers!

Regarding the "lie" about bracing for the largest tax increase quote, I guess we are just arguing semantics here since taxes are going up when the Bush Tax Cuts expire. The Democrats are trying to frame this as taxes are returning to "normal" when the Bush Tax Cuts expire. From a purely financial view taxes are going up thus it is considered a TAX INCREASE and most folks are viewing it that way since it will mean less money in their pocket after the Bush Tax Cuts expire than what they are taking home today. The "spin" is to say taxes are returning to "normal" but the reality is taxes are going up since most folks don't see anything "normal" about giving what they earn to the IRS.

I wait with absolute fascination for Obama's speech tonight where I am sure he will claim he "won" the Iraq War, that his brilliant handling of the conflict since taking office has brought the war to a successful conclusion, and is now brings the troops home as he promised. (FYI he, Pelosi and Reid all voted against and railed against the "Surge" which did bring stability to Iraq)

I find the debate on news reporting interesting because to me the real problem is the blurring (ok, outright smearing) of a line that used to be very solid between Op Ed (Opinion) and the reporting of "facts. " With Editorials you know that someone is expressing their opinion and can apply the appropriate filter to the content. When news sources were actually just reporting "facts", interpretation of the facts (an opinion) was brought out through quotes from "experts" on both sides of the issues. Articles themselves were very neutral. Then, you could judge the opinions based on the experts quoted and their subject matter expertise and agenda. Today, every piece is full of opinion mixed with facts, no matter what the outlet. No need to find experts because every writer is an "expert" and we are just supposed to trust their perspective. And worse, our youngin' aren't really taught a critical eye on these things and actually assume the writers are actually experts. To me there is no debate on which source is more tainted, every news source is tainted and has an agenda. Assume otherwise at your own peril. Read them all, filter heavily for facts, and make your own conclusions. The concept of a "trusted source" for news is long gone.

Sysco

[QUOTE=Sysco234]I find the debate on news reporting interesting because to me the real problem is the blurring (ok, outright smearing) of a line that used to be very solid between Op Ed (Opinion) and the reporting of "facts." With Editorials you know that someone is expressing their opinion and can apply the appropriate filter to the content. When news sources were actually just reporting "facts", interpretation of the facts (an opinion) was brought out through quotes from "experts" on both sides of the issues. Articles themselves were very neutral. Then, you could judge the opinions based on the experts quoted and their subject matter expertise and agenda. Today, every piece is full of opinion mixed with facts, no matter what the outlet. No need to find experts because every writer is an "expert" and we are just supposed to trust their perspective. And worse, our youngin' aren't really taught a critical eye on these things and actually assume the writers are actually experts. To me there is no debate on which source is more tainted, every news source is tainted and has an agenda. Assume otherwise at your own peril. Read them all, filter heavily for facts, and make your own conclusions. The concept of a "trusted source" for news is long gone.

Sysco[/QUOTE]I couldn't agree more. It started with the major networks. Gradually, over the past 20-30 years, they all slid left. It was subtle at first. The "experts" they picked weren't on both sides of the aisle. They would pick extreme left and middle of the road and present them as opposites. Their coverage of issues became slanted based more on what they intentionally left out. Gradually, the anchors started to reveal their political colors. One need only remember Dan Rather as support for that point, but there are many other examples.

Gradually, the networks (including CNN) lost enough credibility with a large enough segment that Fox News sprang up. One can argue that Fox News leans to the right. This seems "wrong," however, only to those who have been blinded to the slow but creeping slide of all the other networks leftward over the past three decades. Fox News would not have been possible had the other networks stayed "fair and balanced." The truth is, they were not, and Fox then served a need.

Today, in another medium, we have NPR. I listen all the time. They claim to be fair and balanced, but that's just so they can continue to get federal funding. It's a laughable pretense when they have Daniel Schorr, Cokie Edwards, Juan Williams and a host of others they present as reporters or even-handed commentators. Only NPR could get away with pitching Arriana Huffington as the "right" in Left, Right and Center. It was so implausible that I think they've now moved her to the "center" position, although she's hardly that.

That diatribe said, I couldn't agree with you more, Sysco. No one should trust much of what they find in the media today. There are a few outlets that I think still do a good job. WSJ on reporting (not on op-ed, but op-ed is supposed to be slanted); the San Jose Mercury News; even the Christian Science Monitor (if you've never read it, do so before you laugh -- its not religious) But, these are few and far between at this point. The vast majority let their reporters grind their personal axes and disguise their opinions as so-called facts, tainting the final product.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Either he did or did not call for keeping some of the cuts. The answer is yes. Why now? I think it is pretty clear to garner political support during an election cycle.[/QUOTE]Doppel, are you aware that back in 2008 Obama ran on a platform that included not raising taxes on the middle class?

Excuse me! Last time I checked Obama has been railing against the Bush Tax Cuts as a giveaway to the "rich" - a term he kept shifting downward with each speech during his campaign to what is now $250,000 annual income for married joint filers. I don't know anyone who considers $250K / year as "rich".

Get a grip Esten since your guy Obama is as slippery as an eel when it comes to economics and taxing the folks. Obama did not get on board until AFTER many Democrats saw this as a cheap trick to attempt to hold on to their seats in November.

By the way, I noticed Obama even admitted we had spent NEARLY $1 Trillion on a 7 year + war, which he noted had been borrowed from foreign creditors. The facts from DOD indicate we spent nearly $1 Trillion on both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns to date (nearly 8 ½ years of combat) and not just Iraq.

Your boy Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office not to mention the next Trillion + on ObamaCare and other give away programs. I guess I would be wrong in saying Obama is a bit disingenuous about where that money was coming from if not from the same foreign creditors Bush got his?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]By the way, I noticed Obama even admitted we had spent NEARLY $1 Trillion on a 7 year + war, which he noted had been borrowed from foreign creditors. The facts from DOD indicate we spent nearly $1 Trillion on both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns to date (nearly 8 ½ years of combat) and not just Iraq.

Your boy Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office not to mention the next Trillion + on ObamaCare and other give away programs. I guess I would be wrong in saying Obama is a bit disingenuous about where that money was coming from if not from the same foreign creditors Bush got his?[/QUOTE]I believe that the correlation was deliberate, as in "[I]George Bush borrowed a trillion dollars from foreign sources to pay for a war on the other side of the world, whereas I borrowed a trillion dollars to "touch" the lives of Americans in the USA.[/i]"

I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.

BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.

I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.

BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.

I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.[/QUOTE]Whew! This is a perfect example of how America has been wasting its education resources. In terms of how to pay for the Bush tax cuts, let's start there. If our education system results in misguided citizens such as this, why bother? There's your trillion dollars right there. Problem solved.

I don't watch Fox News except once a month, if that, while traveling. EVERY media outlet calls it ObamaCare, just as they called it HillaryCare the last time around (before Fox News was a blip) If you think the rest of the networks are "fair and balanced," you've been brainwashed.

Health care or not, Columbia and the rest of South America dream of having an economy that even approaches that of the US. Ask their citizens whether they'd trade cheap dental work and subsidized care for a modern economy. Here's a thought: Ask the Cubans whether a paternalistic, socialist-style economy with free health care is a good thing. Ask the Venezuelans who aren't afraid to talk. Ask the Argentinians in five years if Cristina gets re-elected.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.[/QUOTE]Mark Twain once said, 'It is better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'

Turns out he was right.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for.[/QUOTE]Miamipro,

Here's a straight answer for you: Cut government spending.

Duh.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem.[/quote]So let me see if I understand this: You can afford to travel to Colombia (and we assume other international destinations) to fuck chicas, but can't afford to pay for you own health care, and thus you'd like the rest of us to pay for it for you?

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has.[/quote]I don't know about the rest of the "sane" world, but neither Argentina or Comombia has a "single payer program".

You post said it all, you say your middle class but can't afford healthcare, yet you have a passport and can afford to travel internationally. I submit you have the money but choose to spend it on other things you value more. So cut the cry baby bs about healthcare.

Not sure how to use the Quote thing yet so I will just respond.

Jackson. Cut Government Spending? How about having a Surplus during the Clinton Years and watching all washed away under G. W Bush. I don't care what anyone says. Regardless of party. But if you can't see the monstrosity he created during his 8 years. Then your in more trouble than I thought. While I agree some restraint should be put on certain areas of spending you have to be very careful where you make those cuts. Healthcare shouldn't be one of them. I am even willing to pay more taxes myself if it means better healthcare. Really to me, less government spending = less government oversight. And well you know where some of those cuts have led us. Wall street abuses. MMS. Lack of oversight on Big Oil. You have to find a balance. It can not be free will for all these big guys. Sorry.

Regarding affording Healthcare Vs Chica Mongering. I was paying for my own healthcare through Blue Cross. It started at about $230 Month. A year later it was going at $340. The part I can't afford is where Insurance Giants like BCBS raise the rates for no reasons what so ever. Its cheaper for me to fly from Miami to Medellin get Dental work done than it is for me to go to my local dentist. No brainer there. Regarding the Mongering Funds. I don't really Monger all that much. But when I do I want to be able to enjoy myself. I probably spend a fraction compared to other people who do this hobby full time. Many times I go for non pro and do fairly well for myself.

*I am aware these country's don't have single payer programs. They just happen to be much cheaper than the US. I was referring to France, UK, Cananda. Etc.

Stan Da Man. Only person who is misguided is you. If you want to try and insult my educational background through your Mark Twain quotes. You might want to heed to his advise as well.

I have no problem having political debates and listening to your POV. But if you want to use insults to try and make your point. [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue].

Its funny how you got so defensive when I mention FOX News. Really I don't champion any news network. They all have their own agenda. I point out FOX specifically because they are so over the top.

Here is how they are so hypocritical - People talking about how sensitive the issue is by having a Mosque 4 blocks from ground zero. But its ok for Glenn Beck to hold his rally on the same steps and on the same day as MLK's I have a dream speech. I guess there is no sensitivity on this issue? Then have the audacity to call it a non political event.

Funny

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any [u]personal attacks or derogatory comments[/u] directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.[/blue]

Funny is the fact that someone with an iPhone, who travels to Columbia and Argentina to bang chicas and have fun, can claim that he can't afford health insurance.

Sad is the fact that you believe you ought to be able to put your hand in everyone else's pocket to make them pay for it.

Disgusting is the fact that you apparently believe that you are entitled to have others pay for things you clearly can afford but choose not to pay for.

You said your premium went up from $230 a month to $340 and now you can't afford health care. That's $1,300 a year. How much did you spend on your iPhone, plane fare, hotel / apartment, drinks and chicas while in Columbia and Argentina? Clearly you lied judging by what you've posted about yourself on these boards. You simply would like it if someone else was forced to pay, so you can spend your money on other things you want, rather than on what you claim is a "necessity."

It's not the corporations running this country into the ground. It's greedy folks like yourself with an entitlement mentality.

I am sure this slipped past you about the Clinton years, but after the Republican's took over the House and Senate in 1994 the reductions in government programs began. The primary one was Welfare Reform which contributed the most to the surpluses you speak of. To our lasting shame those hard won cuts in government spending have been given back with interest by both parties in the years since.

ObamaCare's ultimate destination is to basically place those who "can not afford" healthcare coverage (you for example) on Medicaid and increase the benefits provided under Medicaid to those offered by private insurance. In case this also slipped by you the STATES are charged with providing the funds for Medicaid with some assistance from the Fed – in this case it is why they call these things "unfunded mandates" – perhaps that is why 20+ states have filed suit against the Fed? The number of states fighting this unprecedented expansion of the Government will increase after Nov. 2 when many Democrat governors are voted out of office and Republicans replace them.

If you want to start saving money by slashing government spending you can start with the Department of Energy – FYI the Department of Energy was formed after the oil crisis on August 4, 1977 in order to end the United States dependence on foreign oil by President Jimmy Carter's signing of legislation, The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. Here we are 33 years later and what a heck of job this department has done!

How about Medicaid and Welfare (sacred cow / entitlement programs) that needs to be drastically reduced. They are the step children of Lyndon Johnson's "GREAT SOCIETY" experiment in 1964 which has failed miserably to archive its stated goal and has continued to grow, consuming the majority of the federal budget each year.

The USA enjoys the highest living standard in the world, so much so, that we do not consider $250,000 as being rich. Yes, that is true based on statistics but Americans are so "out of wack" from reality that credit card debt are racking up all time highs even before the financial crisis. Homeowners use their equity to live beyond their means whilst believing that they are entitled to the live like the "Rich and Famous".

I recently finished a 4 month trip that included stays in Los Angeles, Fort Lauderdale, Buenos Aires, Bariloche, Iguazu, Sao Paulo, Sorrento, Milan, London and Bangkok. I did have 18 days of free lodging and 42 days of transatlantic and Northern Europe cruising. My total spending was between $11-13K for 2 people.

Yes, I understand and is very familiar with the American lifestyle that equates $250,000 as not being rich. It is a lifestyle of unrestrained spending, gluttony and waste.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Funny is the fact that someone with an iPhone, who travels to Columbia and Argentina to bang chicas and have fun, can claim that he can't afford health insurance.

Sad is the fact that you believe you ought to be able to put your hand in everyone else's pocket to make them pay for it.

Disgusting is the fact that you apparently believe that you are entitled to have others pay for things you clearly can afford but choose not to pay for.

You said your premium went up from $230 a month to $340 and now you can't afford health care. That's $1,300 a year. How much did you spend on your iPhone, plane fare, hotel / apartment, drinks and chicas while in Columbia and Argentina? Clearly you lied judging by what you've posted about yourself on these boards. You simply would like it if someone else was forced to pay, so you can spend your money on other things you want, rather than on what you claim is a "necessity."

It's not the corporations running this country into the ground. It's greedy folks like yourself with an entitlement mentality.[/QUOTE]First lets take you back to school for basic math.$340 X 12 Months = $4080

The point of my comment was, if it went up a $100 more a month after a year who knows where it would keep going if I held on to it. I don't expect anyone to pay for my healthcare. I have even made the comment that I would pay higher taxes if it ment I had access to AFFORDABLE QUALITY HEALTHCARE. Healthcare should be affordable for everyone. Not just the rich and its not OK for Insurance giants to raise rates, cut or cancel coverage just because they are "not making enough money". You sound like a guy who might be in the higher tax bracket (making over $250,000 a year) really I don't know. But if you are. Yea you deserve to pay more taxes.

Iphone - $299 (even though this doesnt count as a travel purchase)

Airfaire to wherever I want to go - no more than $300 (My best friend is a pilot for AA. Im on his D3 List)

Hotel - Free most place as I stay with friends.

Chica's no more than $500 on any trip if I decide to actually monger.

Total trip. Less than a $1000 maybe twice a year at the most.

Only thing I feel I am entitled to is maybe having people like yourself removing their head out of their ass. I know it might be asking for a lot but try it.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]I am sure this slipped past you about the Clinton years, but after the Republican's took over the House and Senate in 1994 the reductions in government programs began. The primary one was Welfare Reform which contributed the most to the surpluses you speak of. To our lasting shame those hard won cuts in government spending have been given back with interest by both parties in the years since.

ObamaCare's ultimate destination is to basically place those who "can not afford" healthcare coverage (you for example) on Medicaid and increase the benefits provided under Medicaid to those offered by private insurance. In case this also slipped by you the STATES are charged with providing the funds for Medicaid with some assistance from the Fed – in this case it is why they call these things "unfunded mandates" – perhaps that is why 20+ states have filed suit against the Fed? The number of states fighting this unprecedented expansion of the Government will increase after Nov. 2 when many Democrat governors are voted out of office and Republicans replace them.

If you want to start saving money by slashing government spending you can start with the Department of Energy – FYI the Department of Energy was formed after the oil crisis on August 4, 1977 in order to end the United States dependence on foreign oil by President Jimmy Carter's signing of legislation, The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. Here we are 33 years later and what a heck of job this department has done!

How about Medicaid and Welfare (sacred cow / entitlement programs) that needs to be drastically reduced. They are the step children of Lyndon Johnson's "GREAT SOCIETY" experiment in 1964 which has failed miserably to archive its stated goal and has continued to grow, consuming the majority of the federal budget each year.[/QUOTE]Actually it didnt slip by me. And I will give credit where credit is do. The Republicans and Bill Clinton. Actually worked together on some very important issues at that time. I wish things were less political and more about getting things done for the American people. Both Sides are gulity of being Party over People. BUT there is no excuse for how GW ran this country into the ground during his presidency. And really no one is defending him or Cheney anymore.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]First lets take you back to school for basic math.$340 X 12 Months = $4080[/QUOTE]$340 (increased premium) - $230 (old premium) = $110 (difference between the two)

$110 * 12 = $1,320 increase. That's your premium increase. You were able to pay $230/ month but claimed you "no longer could afford" the premium when it went up $1,300 annually. Thanks for being a shining example of my original point: The education system has utterly failed you.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]Iphone - $299 (even though this doesnt count as a travel purchase)

Airfaire to wherever I want to go - no more than $300 (My best friend is a pilot for AA. I'm on his D3 List)

Hotel - Free most place as I stay with friends.

Chica's no more than $500 on any trip if I decide to actually monger.

Total trip. Less than a $1000 maybe twice a year at the most.[/QUOTE]You've also demonstrated, once again, that you lied. You pay upwards of $1,500 - $2,000 per year on two mongering trips per year. I have no desire to get too far into your finances. But, anyone who's blowing dough on the top of the line iPhone, traveling and mongering twice a year, also likely has a bunch of other frills they think they're entitled to. You could easily afford the premium increase. You may [b]choose[/b] to blow your money on foreign travel and rent-a-chicas. But what you don't have the right to do is claim that you can't afford the "necessity" of health care, when you simultaneously blow your wad on these other things.

Good for you that your having fun. Just shut your yap about not being able to afford what you want others to pay for.

Travel and go without health care. Pay for health care and end your international mongering. It's pretty simple. Why you can't figure that out is the mystery. It's good to see you finally figured out the quote button, though.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]$340 (increased premium) - $230 (old premium) = $110 (difference between the two)

$110 * 12 = $1,320 increase. That's your premium increase. You were able to pay $230/ month but claimed you "no longer could afford" the premium when it went up $1,300 annually. Thanks for being a shining example of my original point: The education system has utterly failed you.[/QUOTE]Actually Stan. You don't read into things very well. While you see it as a premium increase of $1320. I see it as a annual expenditure that went from $2760 to $4080 within a year and at that rate after 5 years it would =$10,680 annually. And thats if it stays at that current rate, which it probably wouldn't. If you can't see the basic problem with how healthcare has been broken. Then the education system has failed you as well.

Further more just for sake of argument. Lets say I can afford the increase of 1300. I choose not to participate into a broken system anymore. Why give my money to an institution that has those kinds of annual increases, can drop you for no apparent reason and doesn't really have your well being in mind. Let me tell you again so you "get it" The health care system wasn't working.

So instead of trying to attack my POV, why don't you tell me how you would fix health care in the USA if you were in charge of it?

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]You've also demonstrated, once again, that you lied. You pay upwards of $1,500 - $2,000 per year on two mongering trips per year. I have no desire to get too far into your finances. But, anyone who's blowing dough on the top of the line iPhone, traveling and mongering twice a year, also likely has a bunch of other frills they think they're entitled to.[/QUOTE] I agree the iPhone is a top of the line phone and @ $299 it's a very smart buy.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]It's good to see you finally figured out the quote button, though.[/QUOTE]Yes I am a quick learner. But what is even more impressive is that I figured out much faster that your not a very smart guy.

Let's just get back to your original statement, which was:

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American.[/QUOTE]You've clearly demonstrated that this was a lie. You now admit that you can afford your premiums but you chose to drop out because of what you feared would happen to premiums in the future. Your choice, and now you want someone else to pick up the tab so you can have enough dough to go on international mongering junkets.

There's no point debating with a liar or someone with a perspective as jaundiced as this. I've already afforded you more time than you deserve. The only point was to put the lie to your statement that you can't afford health care. You obviously can. You'd just rather spend your money elsewhere.

A busy day I see!

Jackson this thread may well become even more active as the elections approach, and since you've said before what the primary purpose of the board is (mongering) there's a question I've wondered about. I know some discussion boards can split things into "sections" where the primary board-related threads are in the first section, then other misc threads are grouped into a separate section below. So for example on AP, you would see the mongering threads first on the front page, and then only below them in a separate section would be the other threads like this one. I'm not saying I recommend this, I don't care too much. I just wondered if you ever thought about that.

BTW, you said the other day "Fight the smears!" and I stumbled on this website and thought how ironic, that your phrase was actually a website dedicated to addressing right wing smears against Obama in the 2008 election.

[url]http://fightthesmears.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Let's just get back to your original statement, which was:

You've clearly demonstrated that this was a lie. You now admit that you can afford your premiums but you chose to drop out because of what you feared would happen to premiums in the future. Your choice, and now you want someone else to pick up the tab so you can have enough dough to go on international mongering junkets.

There's no point debating with a liar or someone with a perspective as jaundiced as this. I've already afforded you more time than you deserve. The only point was to put the lie to your statement that you can't afford health care. You obviously can. You'd just rather spend your money elsewhere.[/QUOTE]You are by far the biggest idiot here. Congrats! You fail to see the big picture. Just like most of your cronies.

Mongers,

Let's just all agree on one thing: Jackson and Rush Limbaugh are actually twins separated at birth and El Queso is Glenn Beck's soulmate.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.

BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.

I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.[/QUOTE]If you've been following this thread for any length of time you probably know I agree with pretty much everything you said. It is indeed hilarious how Repubs are up in arms about fiscal responsibility, but can't articulate what specific spending cuts they propose to offset tax cuts, balance budgets and address the debt. Mitch McConnell repeatedly dodged questions on this topic last week on Meet The Press, it was classic.

As far as not being able to afford US healthcare though, I would have to agree with Stan. He's not an idiot, though I disagree with him on a number of things. It does sound from the information you provided, that (for now) you can afford US healthcare but simply choose to get it cheaper elsewhere so you have money left over for other things like mongering (which is totally understandable...). But you should acknowledge you mis-spoke, it's not a big deal. You'll always earn respect by acknowledging errors or mis-statements, something many on the right here have difficulty doing.

BTW, I have all the US healthcare coverage I need, and would still be willing to pay more in taxes for universal health care (that would mostly benefit others). Because like you I believe it is something that a truly great country would provide for all its citizens. This would be a case of "my own money" rather than "other people's money". Part of the reason you got challenged here is that you appear to provide a good example of what Republicans despise the most... a low income individual benefitting (or who wants to benefit) from a government program funded by taxes. What Republicans forget is that many people across all income brackets support such programs based on their [I]values[/i], not on the benefit they might personally gain. I'll post more on this later.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,

Let's just all agree on one thing: Jackson and Rush Limbaugh are actually twins separated at birth and El Queso is Glenn Beck's soulmate.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]I know that it amuses you to make this comparison, but aside from superb public speaking abilities, Rush Limbaugh and I have very little in common, to wit:

I am [u]NOT[/u] a Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

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

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

Of course, in today's political environment, I wouldn't underestimate anyone with strong public speaking talent, as this is apparently the only qualification one needs to become the President of the United States.

[size=4][b][i]Zing![/i][/b][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inept President ever![/i][/size]

[QUOTE=Sysco234]I find the debate on news reporting interesting because to me the real problem is the blurring (ok, outright smearing) of a line that used to be very solid between Op Ed (Opinion) and the reporting of "facts. "[/QUOTE]Yes, there was a more obvious demarcation between what was advertised as OPED and "hard news." However, it was merely a false premise. Look into the history of the Pulitzer Prize. Pulitzer was a yellow journalist with a terrible reputation. The creation of the prize was a marketing gambit to try to elevate the perception of journalists and his papers.

[quote]Articles themselves were very neutral.[/QUOTE]Despite the above-mentioned delineation, the wholesale integration of opinion into "hard news" was alive and well 30+ years ago. Walter Cronkite, any one?

[quote]Today, every piece is full of opinion mixed with facts, no matter what the outlet.[/QUOTE]Agreed, there are very few individuals who can remove their own personal biases from any interpretation of events unfolding in front of them. The impact of this human trait on the US news industry has been further exacerbated by generations of indoctrination and reinforcement by the leftist (not left-leaning) main stream media. There are several excellent books on left wing bias in the media that cite reams of historical examples of how the media's perspective paints the left in rosy hues and the right in negative tones, even when the two agree.

[quote] every news source is tainted and has an agenda.[/QUOTE]Every kernel of news, that you do not witness firsthand, has been processed and delivered to you by other human beings, all of whom have their own biases (doesn't matter what they are) which, despite their respective efforts (if any) to keep them out of their reporting, find their way into the coverage. Some times the bias lines up on the "correct" side (I. E. Contempt for a convicted murder, whose crime was caught on video and delivered a full confession) and sometimes it is not.

[quote]Assume otherwise at your own peril. Read them all, filter heavily for facts, and make your own conclusions.[/QUOTE]Yes. Knowledge is king.

[quote]The concept of a "trusted source" for news is long gone.[/QUOTE]That is all it ever was, a concept.

[QUOTE=Esten]If you've been following this thread for any length of time you probably know I agree with pretty much everything you said. It is indeed hilarious how Repubs are up in arms about fiscal responsibility, but can't articulate what specific spending cuts they propose to offset tax cuts, balance budgets and address the debt. Mitch McConnell repeatedly dodged questions on this topic last week on Meet The Press, it was classic.

As far as not being able to afford US healthcare though, I would have to agree with Stan. He's not an idiot, though I disagree with him on a number of things. It does sound from the information you provided, that (for now) you can afford US healthcare but simply choose to get it cheaper elsewhere so you have money left over for other things like mongering (which is totally understandable. But you should acknowledge you mis-spoke, it's not a big deal. You'll always earn respect by acknowledging errors or mis-statements, something many on the right here have difficulty doing.

BTW, I have all the US healthcare coverage I need, and would still be willing to pay more in taxes for universal health care (that would mostly benefit others) Because like you I believe it is something that a truly great country would provide for all its citizens. This would be a case of "my own money" rather than "other people's money". Part of the reason you got challenged here is that you appear to provide a good example of what Republicans despise the most. A low income individual benefitting (or who wants to benefit) from a government program funded by taxes. What Republicans forget is that many people across all income brackets support such programs based on their [I]values[/i], not on the benefit they might personally gain. I'll post more on this later.[/QUOTE]Ok Agreed. Stan your right I can afford Health insurance. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Lets just say I cancelled my policy due to the fact I didnt agree with the principals BCBS and how they are sticking it to me for no reason. I mean eventually if I stayed with them, there would be a point where I couldn't afford it. But simply put I don't feel we should have only 2 choices. Which is either going with a health Insurance provider like BCBS or going with out. Its like your doomed either way. Sorry for calling you an idiot. We are obviously both very passionate about our likes and dislikes in the system today.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]Ok Agreed. Stan your right I can afford Health insurance. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Lets just say I cancelled my policy due to the fact I didnt agree with the principals BCBS and how they are sticking it to me for no reason. [/QUOTE]Boy, you sure showed them. They will probably file bankruptcy as a result of losing your premiums. I do not know what type of policy you had but those rates (before and after the increase) actually sound pretty good.

While you may not agree with BCBS' principles, by dropping coverage, you are only endangering yourself. You are not necessarily buying a service, you are buying protection from the potential need for services. With coverage, if you have no significant health problems during the year, the insurance company wins. If you demand more than $4,000 in healthcare services, you win. Without coverage, if you encounter less than $4,000 in covered costs, you win, however, if you encounter major health care problems, you could be looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs that you must bear.

[quote=]I mean eventually if I stayed with them, there would be a point where I couldn't afford it.[/QUOTE]That's when you start shopping for another carrier.

[quote=] But simply put I don't feel we should have only 2 choices. Which is either going with a health Insurance provider like BCBS or going with out.[/QUOTE]Why can't you use another carrier? There are thousands in the US.

[quote=] Its like your doomed either way.[/QUOTE]Depends on your idea of doomed

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Boy, you sure showed them. They will probably file bankruptcy as a result of losing your premiums. I do not know what type of policy you had but those rates (before and after the increase) actually sound pretty good.[/QUOTE]I wasn't trying to prove anything to them. Yea I am sure they will file for bankruptcy. I think they already did actually. I guess most of the political responses here can only be as smart ass remarks. If I don't agree or like how a company is treating me or charging me. I don't keep using them.

Do You?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]While you may not agree with BCBS' principles, by dropping coverage, you are only endangering yourself. You are not necessarily buying a service, you are buying protection from the potential need for services. With coverage, if you have no significant health problems during the year, the insurance company wins. If you demand more than $4,000 in healthcare services, you win. Without coverage, if you encounter less than $4,000 in covered costs, you win, however, if you encounter major health care problems, you could be looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs that you must bear.[/QUOTE]I am aware of the risks I take by not being covered. Thanks for sharing that.

I am also aware that if something traumatic were to happen to me, there still wouldn't be any guarantees.I did shop for other carriers. Not, much to choose from. Sad thing is I think, if I remember correctly that BCBS was the cheapest on the market. If you want to call that cheap. Yes thousands in the US. Only a couple in Florida. You can't get it across state lines. Not sure about now. But then. No.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Depends on your idea of doomed[/QUOTE]Certain to suffer death, failure, or a similarly negative outcome.

En.wiktionary.org/wiki/doomed

Miamipro,

Perhaps you noticed a new poll out by Gallup regarding which administration the folks would prefer to be in power today: 55% said Bush and 43% said Obama. Wow what a "change" in just 20 months!

While you did notice the reductions in government programs under Clinton which resulted in a surplus you seemed too completely ignore 9/11. What was Bush to do, just say shit-happens? You seem appalled by Bush spending less than a Trillion in 8 years on 2 wars but don't seem at all offended by Obama spending more in just one year which done nothing for the economy and may yet lead to a double dip recession.

Please don't pander to the Democrat's talking point of "well it would have been much worse if we had not acted" BS, these are the same guys who sold the Stimulus Package telling us if we did not act unemployment would reach (gasp) 8.5%. Based on the Dem's claims we would have been better off doing nothing and getting 8.5% unemployment instead of acting and ending up with 10 to 9.5%!

Just read an interesting article in one of my trade journals regarding the 99 weeks of unemployment courtesy of the Obama Admin, guess what the findings were? The majority of unemployed found work within 30 days of losing unemployment benefits at 99 weeks. Gee isn't that just amazing?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Miamipro perhaps you noticed a new poll out by Gallup regarding which administration the folks would prefer to be in power today: 55% said Bush and 43% said Obama. Wow what a "change" in just 20 months![/QUOTE]What makes you think I am so Pro Obama? I mean I will admit he was the best choice out of the selection we had to vote for. And while I did buy into his "Change We Can Believe In" It turns out he just another run at the mouth politician. I am a Independent but lean towards the left. But the progressive left. Obama is not Progressive enough for me and he only has provided some change but not true change I can believe in. Not yet anyway.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]While you did notice the reductions in government programs under Clinton which resulted in a surplus you seemed too completely ignore 9/11. What was Bush to do, just say shit-happens? You seem appalled by Bush spending less than a Trillion in 8 years on 2 wars but don't seem at all offended by Obama spending more in just one year which done nothing for the economy and may yet lead to a double dip recession.[/QUOTE]The wars should have never taken place. After 9/11 we went on the right path by going after Al Queda. Should have just focused on them and getting Bin Laden. But GW Bush wanted to go after Saddam and Iraq. And while you may get instant gratification by seeing the Death of Saddam. It has not been worth everything we have lost there. Specifically the death of our soldiers for a war of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Here is a clip of Cheney himself saying how it would be a quagmire to invade Iraq. This is 1994. He knows whats up. But later down the year can't seem to follow his own advise. Probably because he was to make a lot of war time profits from Halliburton. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Please don't pander to the Democrat's talking point of "well it would have been much worse if we had not acted" BS, these are the same guys who sold the Stimulus Package telling us if we did not act unemployment would reach (gasp) 8.5%. Based on the Dem's claims we would have been better off doing nothing and getting 8.5% unemployment instead of acting and ending up with 10 to 9.5%![/QUOTE]I don't need to Pander to anyone. And if you knew any history of the Initial Stimulus. You should know it was a Bush Policy.

The only Bailout I don't agree with is Bailing out the big Banks and Wall Street, Goldman Sachs (Rolls Eyes) that I didn't agree with.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I guess most of the political responses here can only be as smart ass remarks.[/QUOTE]One of my specialties.

[quote=] If I don't agree or like how a company is treating me or charging me. I don't keep using them.

Do You?[/QUOTE]It depends on what I am buying from them. I would not drop an insurance carrier or policy (life, car, home, health or medical evacuation) without first securing an alternative and understanding the pros and cons of switching. Years ago my car insurance went from 1,300 to 3,500 (two cars) virtually over night. I called and asked why and discovered that they no longer wanted to do business in my state and were going to jack up the rates on everyone until they left for other carriers. I got on the phone, found a broker and found a better deal and switched, without having any period of no coverage. Protecting oneself from the financial implications of health issues is not a right, just prudent risk management (in my opinion) While I don't like paying premiums, I don't like complete exposure to all the risks.

[quote=]I am also aware that if something traumatic were to happen to me, there still wouldn't be any guarantees.[/QUOTE]In the past 25 years I have been on probably a dozen different plans and don't recall more than one or two claims that were ever denied or challenged. Had I not had coverage, my aggregate, family healthcare bill would be several hundred thousand dollars. I can assure you that I have not come close to paying that in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

[quote=]Certain to suffer death, failure, or a similarly negative outcome.[/QUOTE]Dying ain't cheap either but, if you are going to do it in the near future, I advise doing it before the end of 2010.

Stay thirsty my freind