No, I'm saying I have no present need for a semi-retarded populist neo-collectivist with a biatchy, ugly, America-hating wife.

And anyway, if I hired him, he would be required to fill out an I-9 Form and provide the required documentation, which apparently is more than he did to get his present job and public housing.

WhyteRaven74: Thomas Sowell, sweetheart to many in the GOP when it comes to economics, and like Obama a graduate of Columbia and Harvard universities. Though in reverse order, he got his bachelors at Harvard, his masters at Columbia. And he graduated from both in the 50s. When there was no affirmative action in place.

But I'm sure some people will still claim there's no way a negro honestly got into Columbia and Harvard.

Sowell has gone from being a thoughtful conservative economic voice to a partisan hack.

A while ago, I read a Sowell article claiming that if we put limits on executive compensation (any limits, that is), that all of our top business talent would go elsewhere. He used professional sports as an analogy, saying that you need to pay a lot for the top talent in the field, otherwise you'll be a loser.

Nowhere in the article does Sowell mention that our top business talent has royally sucked of late. A better analogy in my opinion would have been a crappy NBA franchise. We've paid WAY too much for guys like Theo Ratliff, Carlos Boozer, Rashard Lewis, Stephon Marbury and Allen Iverson. We are now trying to bring compensation in line with actual talent, but the agents and the players union are crying foul.

Nakito: Partisan arguments never seem to change anyone's mind, do they?

That was either sharply on-target or cement-headed trolling. Let me know which party you belong to so that I can agree or disagree with you accordingly.

lefande: So how is that closing of Gitmo and repeal of the Patriot Act going? I mean your beloved liberals have control of the Legislature and the Executive now, so where is your CHANGEtm?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm quite sure that in some third world shiathole, there is some waterboarding going on by American actors upon some swarthy characters with Barry's knowledge and consent.

Sorry for the reality check. Please continue.

K. I didn't mention any of those things, but whatever. Strawmen welcome here.

If there IS any of that horrendous shiat that the GOP, the party of compassion and family values, is totally OK with going on in Obama's administration, and we find out - there will be incredible anger from the left. See, we are under the impression that people with a moral compass are back at the helm.

You think after eight years of regression that we progressives are going to just smile and overlook any failure to get this country back to where it should be?

But, it did take eight years of Bush to get this mess in it's current form - it can't be fixed so quickly.

Also, I was under the impression that Obama signed the bill to close Gitmo. Unless I'm wrong there, your argument is kind of dead. And I thought that Obama already started taking the chisel to the Patriot Act when he signed an economic bill earlier this year that also had the qualities of giving the American people their right to Habeus Corpus back.

Honestly now, if you want to argue about things getting done - which President was on vacation almost the entirety of the time before he let the biggest terrorist attack in American history happen? Sorry, that's a pretty obvious question. Let's try another one.

Which President immediately took action to try to counter the actions of the previous administration? Actually, that's a trick question - they both did. The thing is Obama is trying to fix things, when Bush just left a rubber stamp behind and went to his ranch.

jgm1976: Yeah. Sadly, Obama sees no difference between creating "jobs" and creating "work."

Yeah, I'll remember that he's only "creating 'work'" next time I hit a pothole.

johnny_vegas: Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: After all, according to the republicans, a person elected POTUS is not responsible for anything until September 12th.

sand in your vagina? it's more common than you think.

Sand? Where? I'm lmao at the republicans who keep moving the goal posts.

And I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, man, but it's the repubs who've been getting their asses kicked for the past few years.

Although, now that you mention it, I am slightly pissed at the cost of popcorn these days. A small price to pay though for the entertainment of watching the republicans implode.

dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

You can't spend your way out of debt. Yes companies need to "spend money to make money" but at the end of the day the company has a product they are selling. And a business plan of how to make money. Whether it's ipods, a new pair of Nike shoes, or hole in the ground where oil might be (whatever)...at the end of the day There is something that will eventually be sold. Spending money on food stamps doesn't create jobs. Studying the migratory pattern of African swallows doesn't create jobs.

No single drop of water will cause a bucket to fill with water, but if it rains long enough we all know what will happen. No one senator or house rep is to blame: THEY ARE ALL TO BLAME.

I agree, jobs will not be created overnight, but they can be lost overnight. It is very easy for a company to see all the spending increases and the tax increases (and all proposed increases from spreading the wealth opportunities) and simply go..."you know what, fark it. I'm heading to china."

You can call it what you want, but just about all of the stuff that Barry Obama campaigned against has been adopted by him once in office. The only thing he has done differently is wreck the economy, pay off Acorn and put us several trillion more in debt.

lefande: No, I'm saying I have no present need for a semi-retarded populist neo-collectivist with a biatchy, ugly, America-hating wife.

And he's none of those things, and she's none of those things.

The only thing he has done differently is wreck the economy

Cause the economy was not at all crumbling before he even took office.

And in other news... The US Treasury is being moved to the Charmin factory who will fold the printers into their production staff.

Linky thing for the number of days until the next presidential election. Link (new window)Pops like a weasel.

PC LOAD LETTER: Laws are usually restrictive in nature. You don't have a problem with "big government" (whatever that's supposed to mean), you have a problem with government in general.

That's not necessarily true. Some of the best laws we have are restrictive on government, such as the bill of rights. Also, a law against harming others in some fashion (stealing, murder) isn't really anti-liberty, because liberty includes being free from theft and violence, whether it is a government doing it or another person. A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else. Those kinds of laws are illegitimate, whether you are a libertarian or an anarchist. Of course most people have been indoctrinated into equating anarchy with chaos or "anything goes," which isn't really true at all, but that's a discussion for another day.

locustfajita: Klingon Penis: He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

WTF is your hero doing to the deficit?

What is necessary during a crisis.
Money market accounts everywhere would've asploded during the apex of the banking crisis if the government hadn't stepped in.
So STFU. Thanks.

lefande: You can call it what you want, but just about all of the stuff that Barry Obama campaigned against has been adopted by him once in office. The only thing he has done differently is wreck the economy, pay off Acorn and put us several trillion more in debt.

You are more right than I am comfortable admitting about Obama not reversing some particularly troublesome aspects of Bush's "War on Terror". It has been a little bit disappointing. However, a few things have already started to change in ways that I like:

- Our foreign policy now consists of more than just "Go fark yourself."

- We are starting to see more investment in science and better science and technology policy.

Lastly:


The only thing he has done differently is wreck the economy...

Sorry, but this is just absurd. Our economy was wrecked even before the election. We could have voted in a Warren Buffet/reincarnation of John D. Rockefeller ticket and the economy would be roughly where it is now. You make a lot of well-thought out arguments in this thread, even if I don't agree with some of them, but this comment is not one of them.

locustfajita: YodaTuna: locustfajita:

Ok. Producers work more for less. Deadbeats get stuff for free. Are we clear on this???

Ok I think I get your argument. It's still not communism. In an ideal communist society, there would be zero unemployment because the government would provide as many jobs as needed. So there are no parasites.

Ok now that we're clear that it is not communism. Let's talk about the rest of it. I'm a producer, but yet my payroll taxes went down with the Recovery Act.

I guess I'm wondering what deadbeats you refer too. President Obama has made any sweeping changes to welfare programs that I'm aware of.

Are you afraid of the Bush tax cuts expiring? Because the rate will simply return to what it was before Bush and we certainly weren't living in a communist nation them? Perhaps a possible raise on Capital Gains back to the levels it was in the 90s? Were we communist then?

WhyteRaven74: PC LOAD LETTER: The Greeks and Romans developed a very different way to handling the poor: slavery.

Romans had plenty of poor people. But by providing free running municipal water, free baths, free gyms etc they kept the poor from suffering various ill effects of poverty, like bad health. Course they didn't do it for the reason of public health, but just because it was the proper thing to do, to provide things for the people.

They did it to stay in power. The Romans consistently conquered lands, slaughtering innocents and besieging cities when it suited their purposes. I've never heard anyone claim that the "benevolent" Romans conquered lands just to offer free shiat.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else.

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER:

Governments HAVE TO support the poor. Period. Not doing so in some form is suicide to people trying to stay in power.


I was just fine with zero real unemployment under most of the Bush Administration. Moots the issue, doesn't it?

LOL WUT

Klingon Penis: What is necessary during a crisis.
Money market accounts everywhere would've asploded during the apex of the banking crisis if the government hadn't stepped in.
So STFU. Thanks.

Nice made-up doomsday scenario. Could've used a tsunami and some explosions though. I love hearing about how bad things "would have been" if the government hadn't stepped in, like it's anything more than speculation.

The prostitution thread is still my favorite of the day though. Always fun hearing a bunch of statists telling me how the very fabric of society would unravel if prostitution were legalized by the government, as I sit here in a state with legal prostitution which has made no difference whatsoever except that we have less arrests for prostitution.

Do I have to do everything myself?

Mr. Right: FDR tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Truman didn't know how to manage the economy. Successful economy.
Eisenhower didn't try to manage the economy. Successful economy.
Kennedy cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.
LBJ tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Nixon tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Carter tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.
Bush I wanted to manage the economy through taxation. Dismal economy.
Clinton did almost nothing to change the Reagan model after the failure of Hillary Care. Successful economy.
Bush II let the economy go. Successful economy.
Bush II after 2006 tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.

See the pattern yet?

Obama is trying to manage the economy. He will fail.

+1
Spot on Mr. Right!
//Everyone should read this again

Ok. Maybe not full on communism, but close enough for me. The whole slippery slope thing and all.

Universal Health Care. I have health care. I work hard for it. Health care is not a right. It. Is. Not. I don't feel like getting rationing and waiting lists so some bum living under a bridge can get a hip replacement that I (and you, if you are a worker) have to pay for.

Deadbeats are people who chose to live slothful, degenerate lives and then try to pass themselves off as "underpriviledged and disadvantaged". I know a lot of people out the are need some help. I've been one of them. But too many are simply hustlers looking for a housing voucher or food stamps (oops, I mean "nutritional vouchers"). I don't want my tax dollars supporing hustlers.

Oh, and fark Bush. fark his stupid prescription drug benefit, and his stupid bailout.

My premise is more Government interference equals greater economic uncertainty. The uncertainty is slowing down the recovery.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: PC LOAD LETTER: Laws are usually restrictive in nature. You don't have a problem with "big government" (whatever that's supposed to mean), you have a problem with government in general.

That's not necessarily true. Some of the best laws we have are restrictive on government, such as the bill of rights. Also, a law against harming others in some fashion (stealing, murder) isn't really anti-liberty, because liberty includes being free from theft and violence, whether it is a government doing it or another person. A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else. Those kinds of laws are illegitimate, whether you are a libertarian or an anarchist. Of course most people have been indoctrinated into equating anarchy with chaos or "anything goes," which isn't really true at all, but that's a discussion for another day.

Hey, go campaign to remove them. Governments have a keen interest in living voters. They also like lower insurance premiums. Plus, folks in the back seat killing folks in the front seat (or worse, injuring them, causing an insurance burden) is a bad thing. Plus, most folks don't die not wearing a seat belt, they just have massive medical bills they can't afford to pay and go into medical bankruptcy or drive others' insurance rates up or cause a burden on Medicare/Medicaid.

YodaTuna: Yea we should just work people to death or let old people go homeless!

No. It should have been set up so that it wasn't a Ponzi scheme, moran. Money paid into it stays in it and maybe grows and can be paid out. Not money paid in gets used for roads and bridges and other such "goodies" brought "home" to your district by your anushole representative.

But thanks for playing.

PC LOAD LETTER: LOL WUT

All of that looks a lot better than where we are now.


SingletonFactory: You make a lot of well-thought out arguments in this thread

Thanks.

SingletonFactory: Sorry, but this is just absurd. Our economy was wrecked even before the election.

Go fark yourself.

Klingon Penis: locustfajita: Klingon Penis: He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

WTF is your hero doing to the deficit?

What is necessary during a crisis.
Money market accounts everywhere would've asploded during the apex of the banking crisis if the government hadn't stepped in.
So STFU. Thanks.

What? Money market accounts are FDIC insured...

YodaTuna Quote 2009-07-12 08:17:36 PM
locustfajita: YodaTuna: locustfajita:

Ok. Producers work more for less. Deadbeats get stuff for free. Are we clear on this???

Ok I think I get your argument. It's still not communism. In an ideal communist society, there would be zero unemployment because the government would provide as many jobs as needed. So there are no parasites.

Ok now that we're clear that it is not communism. Let's talk about the rest of it. I'm a producer, but yet my payroll taxes went down with the Recovery Act.

I guess I'm wondering what deadbeats you refer too. President Obama has made any sweeping changes to welfare programs that I'm aware of.

He repealed all past Welfare Reforms setting us back to the 1970's. This was hidden in the Stimulus Bill.

Link (new window)

lefande: SingletonFactory: Sorry, but this is just absurd. Our economy was wrecked even before the election.

Go fark yourself.

I'm not even sure I understand your response. Are you seriously suggesting that the economy was fine until Obama took office?

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER: LOL WUT

All of that looks a lot better than where we are now.

No no no no no no no. You said "zero real unemployment".



So, when was Obama inaugurated?

Oh, and in case you failed Economics, Employment isn't a real-time indicator. We have been through enough recessions, depressions and panics since inception to know that by now. It takes months to react and years for it to recover.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Obama has not gone full retard. His plans are working great. Link (new window)

locustfajita: Universal Health Care. I have health care. I work hard for it. Health care is not a right. It. Is. Not. I don't feel like getting rationing and waiting lists so some bum living under a bridge can get a hip replacement that I (and you, if you are a worker) have to pay for.

Instead of that "bum", as you call them, going to the ER for treatment for their undiagnosed illness, racking $10s of thousands in medical expenses then walking out without paying a penny leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill? Which is what is happening in our current system.

Besides, if that "bum" is as poor as you say they are, then they qualify for Medicaid, which is a government-run insurance program.

So either way, the taxpayers are paying for his treatment.

Arrgh wrong graph.


Link (new window)

Theeeere we go...

PC LOAD LETTER: Hey, go campaign to remove them.

So you're saying I should beg all of my government "representatives" to reduce the government's own size and control, not to mention remove one of its most useful tools for raising revenue on the highway and searching its citizens for contraband. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical. Besides, the last time I wrote to my Congressman he replied nearly a year later with a form letter. To be fair, he was in and out of substance rehab at the time and struggling with some serious mental health problems.

Governments have a keen interest in living voters.

I can assure you that the government couldn't care less if you personally live or die. It's about control and revenue generation, that's it. I'm sorry if you bought their absolutely laughable press release that it's for your own good.

They also like lower insurance premiums.

No they don't.

Plus, folks in the back seat killing folks in the front seat (or worse, injuring them, causing an insurance burden) is a bad thing.

The horror! Good thing nowhere in this country allows such recklessness and disaster. Oh wait, New Hampshire does, and it's not an issue. At all. In fact, it's consistently rated one of the safest and healthiest states, although I forget whether it was number one or number two this year. What you are describing is highly improbable in the first place, somebody flying over the headrests and injuring somebody in the front seat. Would you like me to dig up all the articles I can find about people dying or being seriously injured because they couldn't get their seatbelt off in time to counter the instances in which it does occur?

Plus, most folks don't die not wearing a seat belt, they just have massive medical bills they can't afford to pay and go into medical bankruptcy or drive others' insurance rates up or cause a burden on Medicare/Medicaid.

One of many reasons why I don't support Medicare/Medicaid. People should be forced to pay for the consequences of their own personal decisions.

dustman81: locustfajita: Universal Health Care. I have health care. I work hard for it. Health care is not a right. It. Is. Not. I don't feel like getting rationing and waiting lists so some bum living under a bridge can get a hip replacement that I (and you, if you are a worker) have to pay for.

Instead of that "bum", as you call them, going to the ER for treatment for their undiagnosed illness, racking $10s of thousands in medical expenses then walking out without paying a penny leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill? Which is what is happening in our current system.

Besides, if that "bum" is as poor as you say they are, then they qualify for Medicaid, which is a government-run insurance program.

So either way, the taxpayers are paying for his treatment.

I know there has to be some taxpayer funded public health programs. There are very good public health reasons to pick up the tab for some deadbeats drug resistant tuberculosis treatment. I could think of other examples as well.

Obama says he can cut costs and expand coverage. I don't belive that is possible without making me pay a shiatload more for a shiatload less.

That bothers me, and I think it bothers a lot of hard working voters.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox

One of many reasons why I don't support Medicare/Medicaid. People should be forced to pay for the consequences of their own personal decisions.

Like getting older was something we do by choice. You sound like an 18 yo with no concept of your own mortality.

/PS - been paying into FICA and medicare for many, many years.

GomezAdams: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox

One of many reasons why I don't support Medicare/Medicaid. People should be forced to pay for the consequences of their own personal decisions.

Like getting older was something we do by choice. You sound like an 18 yo with no concept of your own mortality.

/PS - been paying into FICA and medicare for many, many years.

I was talking about seat-belt related injuries, not aging, if you actually go back and read what I wrote in context.

Economics are pawns to social trends.

The American people are a globally potent economic force. If they ever became self-aware and started spending accordingly, the entire financial system would have to bow to their will. Renewable energy spending alone could revamp the world banking system. Too bad our education system fails so mightily.

/was that UFC party awesome or what?

Klingon Penis: Mr. Right: WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: Obama will fail.

And it just makes you giggle with glee a the thought he will.

Wrong. Obama's failure will reverbrate throughout the world. His failure will cause untold suffering not only here in the U.S. but globally. There is absolutely no glee in that.

On the other hand, if you, as a rabid Obama supporter, lose your job, exhaust all your benefits, lose your home and then get desperately ill and Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle. A little.

There's a phrase for morans like Mr. Right: witless contrarian. Opposes everything, right or wrong, for the sake of acquiring/reacquiring political power and/or trying to prove a particular ideology.

It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party, which is why they're so far in the crapper they won't see daylight for decades.

The Republican Party is in the crapper because they became Democrat Light and raced to show the world they could be as fiscally irresponsible as real Democrats. Then they stopped fighting back for fear of being called names.

They got what they deserved.

As far as being there for decades, not likely. Someone will come along and start talking conservative ideas again and they'll start rising again.

PC LOAD LETTER: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else.

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER:

Governments HAVE TO support the poor. Period. Not doing so in some form is suicide to people trying to stay in power.


I was just fine with zero real unemployment under most of the Bush Administration. Moots the issue, doesn't it?

LOL WUT

Well there is a portion of the population that doesent want || need to work.

There will never be zero because of lazy || financially secure people.

Benjimin_Dover: YodaTuna: Yea we should just work people to death or let old people go homeless!

No. It should have been set up so that it wasn't a Ponzi scheme, moran. Money paid into it stays in it and maybe grows and can be paid out. Not money paid in gets used for roads and bridges and other such "goodies" brought "home" to your district by your anushole representative.

But thanks for playing.

I agree with you. In fact Al Gore agreed with you almost 10 years ago. But the fact that the government keeps dipping into SS does not make it a ponzi scheme. So it doesn't sound like you have a problem with the idea of social security. Just that their are idiots running it right now. I happen to agree.

boobsrgood: Economics are pawns to social trends.

The American people are a globally potent economic force. If they ever became self-aware and started spending accordingly, the entire financial system would have to bow to their will. Renewable energy spending alone could revamp the world banking system. Too bad our education system fails so mightily.

/was that UFC party awesome or what?

A Witch!

shotglasss: Klingon Penis: Mr. Right: WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: Obama will fail.

And it just makes you giggle with glee a the thought he will.

Wrong. Obama's failure will reverbrate throughout the world. His failure will cause untold suffering not only here in the U.S. but globally. There is absolutely no glee in that.

On the other hand, if you, as a rabid Obama supporter, lose your job, exhaust all your benefits, lose your home and then get desperately ill and Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle. A little.

There's a phrase for morans like Mr. Right: witless contrarian. Opposes everything, right or wrong, for the sake of acquiring/reacquiring political power and/or trying to prove a particular ideology.

It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party, which is why they're so far in the crapper they won't see daylight for decades.

The Republican Party is in the crapper because they became Democrat Light and raced to show the world they could be as fiscally irresponsible as real Democrats. Then they stopped fighting back for fear of being called names.

They got what they deserved.

As far as being there for decades, not likely. Someone will come along and start talking conservative ideas again and they'll start rising again.

This is what so many Democrats fail to see. Republicans haven't started losing because of their conservative policies--they have started losing because of their compromise on (and even embrace of) liberal policies. Moving back toward true conservatism is moving toward winning elections.

locustfajita: I know there has to be some taxpayer funded public health programs. There are very good public health reasons to pick up the tab for some deadbeats drug resistant tuberculosis treatment. I could think of other examples as well.

Obama says he can cut costs and expand coverage. I don't belive that is possible without making me pay a shiatload more for a shiatload less.

That bothers me, and I think it bothers a lot of hard working voters.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

The overhead for Medicare - which every person paying payroll taxes in the US already pays into and everyone who is over 65 is eligible for - is ~3%. So 97 cents of every dollar collected by Medicare gets applied to medical treatments.

The overhead for private insurers is >20%, meaning 80 cents of every dollar gets spend on medical treatments. Where does the other 20 cents go? Towards marketing, paperwork, medical reviewers, lawyers, executive bonuses and investor dividends. Here's the kicker. The more money insurance companies spend on claims, the lower their stock goes. They have a financial incentive to deny care.

Besides, when you get more people in the insurance pool, the cost per person goes down. The whole idea of insurance is spreading the risk. You also get economies of scale, which is when a company or organization says "I have this much buying power, I want my price lowered". Medicare Part D would have been great if the law allowed Medicare to use their size on getting prices of drugs lowered. But the law said Medicare had to pay what the drug companies wanted.

ensign_noname: PC LOAD LETTER: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else.

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER:

Governments HAVE TO support the poor. Period. Not doing so in some form is suicide to people trying to stay in power.


I was just fine with zero real unemployment under most of the Bush Administration. Moots the issue, doesn't it?

LOL WUT

Well there is a portion of the population that doesent want || need to work.

There will never be zero because of lazy || financially secure people.

I don't think financially secure people count toward the unemployment rate. I think it's calculated off of something else.

locustfajita:



Obama says he can cut costs and expand coverage. I don't belive that is possible without making me pay a shiatload more for a shiatload less.

That bothers me, and I think it bothers a lot of hard working voters.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

It doesn't bother me as a hard working American? Why? Two reasons.

1) The american government already pays more for health care per citizen than any other nation in the world. Socialized health care(which President Obama isn't even supporting) would easily bring that number down, just like it did in every other 1st world country that adopted the system. You just have to look at the results. You're actually against saving money when you argue for the current system.

2) I'm more concerned about the health and welfare of the citizens that live in my country than I am about my taxes. Despite what you think, the vast, VAST majority of americans are hard working, they just can't afford the huge amounts of money health insurance costs. And they're lucky if that's the worst of their problems. Let's not even talk about pre-existing conditions.

The insurance companies have had their chance, but they refused to try to fix the system. The government must intervene.

uatuba:

This is what so many Democrats fail to see. Republicans haven't started losing because of their conservative policies--they have started losing because of their compromise on (and even embrace of) liberal policies. Moving back toward true conservatism is moving toward winning elections.

I think you're right. Only nowadays "True" conservatism means something totally different than what it did years ago. Old-school conservatism is no longer "true" conservatism, now it is more closely tied with complete deregulation of industry, anti-evolution mumbo-jumbo, and making sure that all the defense contractors have their pockets properly lined.

uatuba:
This is what so many Democrats fail to see. Republicans haven't started losing because of their conservative policies--they have started losing because of their compromise on (and even embrace of) liberal policies. Moving back toward true conservatism is moving toward winning elections.

Republicans have never embraced conservative policiess, so I don't think they will any time soon. You're whole party was pretty gung-ho about voting for Bush TWICE. Are you saying Bush was liberal? If he was, why did the conservatives vote for him?

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: PC LOAD LETTER: Hey, go campaign to remove them.

So you're saying I should beg all of my government "representatives" to reduce the government's own size and control, not to mention remove one of its most useful tools for raising revenue on the highway and searching its citizens for contraband. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical. Besides, the last time I wrote to my Congressman he replied nearly a year later with a form letter. To be fair, he was in and out of substance rehab at the time and struggling with some serious mental health problems.

Go start a revolution then. Good luck with that.


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I can assure you that the government couldn't care less if you personally live or die. It's about control and revenue generation, that's it. I'm sorry if you bought their absolutely laughable press release that it's for your own good.

It's a combo of keeping VOTERS alive, and keeping state costs down. Yep, it's largely about money. Don't like it? Tough shiat. You won't get anyone elected to change the fundamentals of American Government in any real way. Americans want a small change, not a revolution in government. This is not a small change you are proposing. Move or try to overthrow the government. Or you can continue to whine about how unfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair it all is on Fark.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: The horror! Good thing nowhere in this country allows such recklessness and disaster. Oh wait, New Hampshire does, and it's not an issue. At all. In fact, it's consistently rated one of the safest and healthiest states, although I forget whether it was number one or number two this year. What you are describing is highly improbable in the first place, somebody flying over the headrests and injuring somebody in the front seat. Would you like me to dig up all the articles I can find about people dying or being seriously injured because they couldn't get their seatbelt off in time to counter the instances in which it does occur?

Then by all means, move there and shut up.

So by your logic, NH proves that seat belts are dangerous and only not having them is the only safe option to keep you alive. Right. I'm sure you'll pull out your study and I can get the NTSB's studies or whatever and we can see whose is bigger or whatever.

I'll start:

In the past 26 years, safety belts prevented 135,000 fatalities and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs. If all vehicle occupants had used safety belts during that period, nearly 315,000 deaths and 5.2 million injuries could have been prevented and $913 billion in costs saved. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the deaths and serious injuries prevented by safety belts resulted in savings of $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

Motor vehicle crashes in 2000 cost a total of $230.6 billion, an amount equal to 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product, or $820 for every person living in the United States. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the economic cost to society was more than $977,000 for each crash fatality and an average of $1.1 million for each critically injured person. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

The general public pays nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, delays and lost productivity. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: One of many reasons why I don't support Medicare/Medicaid. People should be forced to pay for the consequences of their own personal decisions.

As someone with an 81-year old Father with Parkinson's in a Nursing Home with Medicare now as his only method to afford actual health care and Medicaid in a bit, you can imagine what I think of your "let them eat cake" crap. Without them, he would be forced into the nice Veteran's hospital nearby. It's a god damned zoo there and they IMMEDIATELY try to get you to sign a DNR. No thanks. Plus, that's yet another "burden on the state", according to you folks (unless military service gets you some magical exemption. He was a damned pencil pusher in the Army. Not exactly Audie Murphy there.)

I'd rather pay into the system (and have everyone else do the same). It works just fine: you have to have basically no money to be eligible for Medicaid. My dad's got an apartment we are selling, so he's a private payer now. When he's run out of funds from that one and only asset, the choices are the state pays or he's out on the street. I have no problem with a system that prevents us reverting to the 1830s with "poor houses".

People need to be forced. Sorry. It's the way it has been since the damn dawn of Governments in Human history.

I love people that say "look it up" and then don't provide a source.

The Federal Reserve is pulling money out of the system... Should be an exciting week and months of bankruptcies and bank failures...

yelmrog: I think you're right. Only nowadays "True" conservatism means something totally different than what it did years ago. Old-school conservatism is no longer "true" conservatism, now it is more closely tied with complete deregulation of industry, anti-evolution mumbo-jumbo, and making sure that all the defense contractors have their pockets properly lined.

Well, conservatism hasn't existed since Regan. And even then, his foreign policy was far from conservative.

YodaTuna: Republicans have never embraced conservative policiess, so I don't think they will any time soon. You're whole party was pretty gung-ho about voting for Bush TWICE. Are you saying Bush was liberal? If he was, why did the conservatives vote for him?

Republicans have embraced conservative policies. Unfortunately, not for some time. The current bunch using the social conservative agenda to masquerade as conservatives, while pushing liberal big-government and fiscal polices, are not conservatives.