I'm not going to go into any of my political thoughts, but I will say it surely is amusing to see grown men get their panties in knots on internet forums.
Can't stand much FOX, bent over right. MSNBC morning Joe's ok, the rest of MSNBC is bent too far left. All kinds of people think they're being patriotic by calling themselves "conservative". If you're an American "conservative", aren't you "conserving" the LIBERAL ideas that founded this country? These would be the LIBERAL notions that all men are created equal, that 99% of us do not exist merely to serve the pleasure of the wealthy and powerful? The LIBERAL notion that commoners can own property and have a say in their own government. Europe was not in any way headed toward socialism when we broke away, it was a collection of monarchies, nothing socialist about it. The sad truth is that most folks think that they need to support the Republicans to save them from the Democrats, or support the Democrats to save them from the Republicans, when in fact the whole thing is like a Marx Brothers movie: the two major parties are Groucho and Harpo keeping your attention elsewhere while Zeppo (Wall St.) picks your pockets clean.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Can't stand much FOX, bent over right. MSNBC morning Joe's ok, the rest of MSNBC is bent too far left. All kinds of people think they're being patriotic by calling themselves "conservative". If you're an American "conservative", aren't you "conserving" the LIBERAL ideas that founded this country? These would be the LIBERAL notions that all men are created equal, that 99% of us do not exist merely to serve the pleasure of the wealthy and powerful? The LIBERAL notion that commoners can own property and have a say in their own government. Europe was not in any way headed toward socialism when we broke away, it was a collection of monarchies, nothing socialist about it. The sad truth is that most folks think that they need to support the Republicans to save them from the Democrats, or support the Democrats to save them from the Republicans, when in fact the whole thing is like a Marx Brothers movie: the two major parties are Groucho and Harpo keeping your attention elsewhere while Zeppo (Wall St.) picks your pockets clean.
I keep thinking about this too. The men at the first constitutional convention were some visionary thinkers. Too bad things have moved so far away from that. I see your LIBERAL ideas above. IMO this more progressive (probably I'm just getting hung up on terminology) than liberal or conservative. Add separation of church and state to that list. I'm sure established governments at the time were getting a real chuckle out of that one.
Can't stand much FOX, bent over right. MSNBC morning Joe's ok, the rest of MSNBC is bent too far left. All kinds of people think they're being patriotic by calling themselves "conservative". If you're an American "conservative", aren't you "conserving" the LIBERAL ideas that founded this country? These would be the LIBERAL notions that all men are created equal, that 99% of us do not exist merely to serve the pleasure of the wealthy and powerful? The LIBERAL notion that commoners can own property and have a say in their own government. Europe was not in any way headed toward socialism when we broke away, it was a collection of monarchies, nothing socialist about it. The sad truth is that most folks think that they need to support the Republicans to save them from the Democrats, or support the Democrats to save them from the Republicans, when in fact the whole thing is like a Marx Brothers movie: the two major parties are Groucho and Harpo keeping your attention elsewhere while Zeppo (Wall St.) picks your pockets clean.
I keep thinking about this too. The men at the first constitutional convention were some visionary thinkers. Too bad things have moved so far away from that. I see your LIBERAL ideas above. IMO this more progressive (probably I'm just getting hung up on terminology) than liberal or conservative. Add separation of church and state to that list. I'm sure established governments at the time were getting a real chuckle out of that one.
Good points peeps. Both the parties are severely screwed up that is for sure.
Fox News works for the same reason that Busweiser works----its easy and its comfortable for the "lowest common demoninator". Not saying people here are simpletons, or that they dont have intelligent people on their side----just saying it takes more brains to question and engage in critical thinking than it does to say that we need to proect the traditional family at all costs and that terorrists are bad....People who watch other news agencies seem to be able to progress a little beyond the "fun to talk about issues" like abortion and death panels and on to a true conversation about issues that impact people.
See the exact same thing can be said for MSLSD or CNN. It takes some brains to question the President and not just praise him for every move he makes. That's where Fox News comes in. They aren't for the "lowest common denominator," they just go after the issues main stream media refuses to go after. They hold the current administration accountable and everyone loved doing this during the Bush administration, but now that the anointed one is in office, they don't feel it is necessary.
Lol, I find that one hard to believe. Fox lables itself news, though it isn't. MSNBC does not. A big difference. Also most shows on MSNBC call people out and actually look into a story for the fact. Just watching Fox News about the healthcare debate, which they seem to promote the lies brought out by corporate funded freedom works, and republicans who have no ideas and just want democrats to fail and will make anything up. The shows that I have seen like chris oberman or rachel maddow actually look at the bills and will show what they have in there, vs Fox which will just spew crap from michelle bachman's mouth. The whole terrorism thing is another one, hell fox has cheney on there as much as they can spewing his BS, the very same man who was in control during 911!!! Irony at its worse. I do think both networks have issues, one such thing that really made me mad was when thousands of gay people marched on washington but there was little or no coverage of it. But several hundred tea baggers get together and FOX is all over it as well as most other networks. Its laughable but at the same time very very sad.
Yeah, great points Vulchor. Killing babies is awesome! Let's allow tax monies in a health care bill to be used to kill more kids WOOOHOOO! Ya great! Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children is an issue that impacts people.
Not saying people here are simpletons..just saying it takes more brains to engage in critical thinking. Save it. You think conservatives are as dumb as your leaders do. They know people have figured them out, that's why all this health stuff is in full gear. Oh and terrorist are bad. Understand a smidgen about Jihad and Muslims, obviously you don't understand their mentality.
And the family is why this country is great, that is why it is such an important issue. Look up stats on whole families as opposed to broken ones. Do some research before you chime back in.
Conservatives stand for something, liberals stand for nothing... and you guys can't stand it.
Phobic... on par for a Portland guy with the teabagger comment. You higher thinkers sure can stoop low.
Name 3 things conservatives have done that were for the good of the country? Kill babies? WTF? You people are all about the fetus but once they become a person they are worthless, besides what is it to anyone other than the person that is having a baby. And tax dollars to kill kids? Well we all pay taxes, and the last 8 years a few people lied this country into a war which killed thousands of kids along with our own people. Conservative aren't dumb, though a lot of them are very easily misled. I can say the same thing about liberals though liberals largely want to help the common-wealth of the country and are against killing people over materials. Also liberals are more inclined to promote jobs that are based in this country not outsourced or part of a large corporation and fight to keep jobs here. Also conservatism is not what is sounds like. If it was then say Single Payer healthcare would have passed with flying colors as it would save millions if not billions of dollars.
Oh and tea bagger is fine. These people wore tea bags on their heads, I think some have their mind way too far in the gutter.
Fox News works for the same reason that Busweiser works----its easy and its comfortable for the "lowest common demoninator". Not saying people here are simpletons, or that they dont have intelligent people on their side----just saying it takes more brains to question and engage in critical thinking than it does to say that we need to proect the traditional family at all costs and that terorrists are bad....People who watch other news agencies seem to be able to progress a little beyond the "fun to talk about issues" like abortion and death panels and on to a true conversation about issues that impact people.
See the exact same thing can be said for MSLSD or CNN. It takes some brains to question the President and not just praise him for every move he makes. That's where Fox News comes in. They aren't for the "lowest common denominator," they just go after the issues main stream media refuses to go after. They hold the current administration accountable and everyone loved doing this during the Bush administration, but now that the anointed one is in office, they don't feel it is necessary.
Lol, I find that one hard to believe. Fox lables itself news, though it isn't. MSNBC does not. A big difference. Also most shows on MSNBC call people out and actually look into a story for the fact. Just watching Fox News about the healthcare debate, which they seem to promote the lies brought out by corporate funded freedom works, and republicans who have no ideas and just want democrats to fail and will make anything up. The shows that I have seen like chris oberman or rachel maddow actually look at the bills and will show what they have in there, vs Fox which will just spew crap from michelle bachman's mouth. The whole terrorism thing is another one, hell fox has cheney on there as much as they can spewing his BS, the very same man who was in control during 911!!! Irony at its worse. I do think both networks have issues, one such thing that really made me mad was when thousands of gay people marched on washington but there was little or no coverage of it. But several hundred tea baggers get together and FOX is all over it as well as most other networks. Its laughable but at the same time very very sad.
The fact that you keep personally attacking anyone with a different view from yours, like callin the tea parties tea baggers, just shows that you don't care about what is or is not true. You talk about lies but have shown none on the health care debate. Until yesterday we didn't even know what was in the latest health care proposal. That's ok though, you keep trashing Fox News while you get your news from more reliable sources like the huffington post and evey other liberal blogger out there like they preach the gospel, while the government continues to rob us of our rights daily. The fact remains, the government is stripping us of our freedom every day but you still defend it as long as there isn't an R in front of their name. You can say that isn't true all you want, but as long as you keep preaching about the wonders of a single payer system, which would bankrupt our country and destroy the quality of health care we currently have, it shows that you don't care about freedom, you care about what the government can do for you no matter what the cost to the nation. What news sources I choose to view really doesn't matter, I don't want liberals from either party to continue their assault on the values our country was founded on.
Fox News works for the same reason that Busweiser works----its easy and its comfortable for the "lowest common demoninator". Not saying people here are simpletons, or that they dont have intelligent people on their side----just saying it takes more brains to question and engage in critical thinking than it does to say that we need to proect the traditional family at all costs and that terorrists are bad....People who watch other news agencies seem to be able to progress a little beyond the "fun to talk about issues" like abortion and death panels and on to a true conversation about issues that impact people.
See the exact same thing can be said for MSLSD or CNN. It takes some brains to question the President and not just praise him for every move he makes. That's where Fox News comes in. They aren't for the "lowest common denominator," they just go after the issues main stream media refuses to go after. They hold the current administration accountable and everyone loved doing this during the Bush administration, but now that the anointed one is in office, they don't feel it is necessary.
Lol, I find that one hard to believe. Fox lables itself news, though it isn't. MSNBC does not. A big difference. Also most shows on MSNBC call people out and actually look into a story for the fact. Just watching Fox News about the healthcare debate, which they seem to promote the lies brought out by corporate funded freedom works, and republicans who have no ideas and just want democrats to fail and will make anything up. The shows that I have seen like chris oberman or rachel maddow actually look at the bills and will show what they have in there, vs Fox which will just spew crap from michelle bachman's mouth. The whole terrorism thing is another one, hell fox has cheney on there as much as they can spewing his BS, the very same man who was in control during 911!!! Irony at its worse. I do think both networks have issues, one such thing that really made me mad was when thousands of gay people marched on washington but there was little or no coverage of it. But several hundred tea baggers get together and FOX is all over it as well as most other networks. Its laughable but at the same time very very sad.
The fact that you keep personally attacking anyone with a different view from yours, like callin the tea parties tea baggers, just shows that you don't care about what is or is not true. You talk about lies but have shown none on the health care debate. Until yesterday we didn't even know what was in the latest health care proposal. That's ok though, you keep trashing Fox News while you get your news from more reliable sources like the huffington post and evey other liberal blogger out there like they preach the gospel, while the government continues to rob us of our rights daily. The fact remains, the government is stripping us of our freedom every day but you still defend it as long as there isn't an R in front of their name. You can say that isn't true all you want, but as long as you keep preaching about the wonders of a single payer system, which would bankrupt our country and destroy the quality of health care we currently have, it shows that you don't care about freedom, you care about what the government can do for you no matter what the cost to the nation. What news sources I choose to view really doesn't matter, I don't want liberals from either party to continue their assault on the values our country was founded on.
I've shown a lot of things that have been lied about just healthcare in these bills now bill. You just don't read it or don't look at it. I've even posted links. Values? The vaules that you bring as you've said many times obviously is something I don't want. I am for helping people and making lives better. That would be a single payer system for healthcare, though you are fine with lining the pockets of a slect few who continue to deny people and cut them from their healthcare, thus making massive profits. I'm for keeping jobs here in this country from companies that are based in America not outsourcing and cutting jobs and wages. Which your party has continued to do over and over again. I am saving our freedoms, though your own party pushed the patriot act which is a severe breech of freedoms, gave multi billions to wall street and the banks (thank you bush and paulson) but oh no, when the American Auto Companies need a loan, we can't have that. When are you going to understand that your party left you a long time ago or maybe you just see things that way. I know many Republicans who left the "party" just from the way they have acted. I am an Independent and am very upset with Obama. Oh and your party is so for WAR but when helping out your own citizens you could care less. Trillions of dollars for WAR but the commons are, well expendable.
Fox News works for the same reason that Busweiser works----its easy and its comfortable for the "lowest common demoninator". Not saying people here are simpletons, or that they dont have intelligent people on their side----just saying it takes more brains to question and engage in critical thinking than it does to say that we need to proect the traditional family at all costs and that terorrists are bad....People who watch other news agencies seem to be able to progress a little beyond the "fun to talk about issues" like abortion and death panels and on to a true conversation about issues that impact people.
See the exact same thing can be said for MSLSD or CNN. It takes some brains to question the President and not just praise him for every move he makes. That's where Fox News comes in. They aren't for the "lowest common denominator," they just go after the issues main stream media refuses to go after. They hold the current administration accountable and everyone loved doing this during the Bush administration, but now that the anointed one is in office, they don't feel it is necessary.
Lol, I find that one hard to believe. Fox lables itself news, though it isn't. MSNBC does not. A big difference. Also most shows on MSNBC call people out and actually look into a story for the fact. Just watching Fox News about the healthcare debate, which they seem to promote the lies brought out by corporate funded freedom works, and republicans who have no ideas and just want democrats to fail and will make anything up. The shows that I have seen like chris oberman or rachel maddow actually look at the bills and will show what they have in there, vs Fox which will just spew crap from michelle bachman's mouth. The whole terrorism thing is another one, hell fox has cheney on there as much as they can spewing his BS, the very same man who was in control during 911!!! Irony at its worse. I do think both networks have issues, one such thing that really made me mad was when thousands of gay people marched on washington but there was little or no coverage of it. But several hundred tea baggers get together and FOX is all over it as well as most other networks. Its laughable but at the same time very very sad.
The fact that you keep personally attacking anyone with a different view from yours, like callin the tea parties tea baggers, just shows that you don't care about what is or is not true. You talk about lies but have shown none on the health care debate. Until yesterday we didn't even know what was in the latest health care proposal. That's ok though, you keep trashing Fox News while you get your news from more reliable sources like the huffington post and evey other liberal blogger out there like they preach the gospel, while the government continues to rob us of our rights daily. The fact remains, the government is stripping us of our freedom every day but you still defend it as long as there isn't an R in front of their name. You can say that isn't true all you want, but as long as you keep preaching about the wonders of a single payer system, which would bankrupt our country and destroy the quality of health care we currently have, it shows that you don't care about freedom, you care about what the government can do for you no matter what the cost to the nation. What news sources I choose to view really doesn't matter, I don't want liberals from either party to continue their assault on the values our country was founded on.
I've shown a lot of things that have been lied about just healthcare in these bills now bill. You just don't read it or don't look at it. I've even posted links. Values? The vaules that you bring as you've said many times obviously is something I don't want. I am for helping people and making lives better. That would be a single payer system for healthcare, though you are fine with lining the pockets of a slect few who continue to deny people and cut them from their healthcare, thus making massive profits. I'm for keeping jobs here in this country from companies that are based in America not outsourcing and cutting jobs and wages. Which your party has continued to do over and over again. I am saving our freedoms, though your own party pushed the patriot act which is a severe breech of freedoms, gave multi billions to wall street and the banks (thank you bush and paulson) but oh no, when the American Auto Companies need a loan, we can't have that. When are you going to understand that your party left you a long time ago or maybe you just see things that way. I know many Republicans who left the "party" just from the way they have acted. I am an Independent and am very upset with Obama. Oh and your party is so for WAR but when helping out your own citizens you could care less. Trillions of dollars for WAR but the commons are, well expendable.
Well first of all you have not EVER heard me say I'm a republican, because I'm not a registered member of any party. But thanks for thinking you know what I stand for. I do not agree with the Patriot Act. I think there were good parts of it, but as a whole I was not for it. You keep acting like I follow a strict party line but that just shows that you have not listened a think I have said anywhere on here. The only one on here I have heard say they are a registered Republican is Vulchor, and that is laughable... You can keep spouting the same tired old slogans of the left like "you're for corporate control" and "you're lining the pockets of big business," but in reality I'm for building wealth for everyone from the bottom to the top. I'm for more personal freedom and more personal responsibility. I'm not for the government taking over businesses in any way or bailing them out. Let them fail! Let the be responsible for their own greed. THAT will fix this country. If you don't like my values, then you clearly don't like the values set forth by the founders of this nation and you, much like the rest of the left in this country, don't think our Constitution is worth the paper it is printed on. I tend to think those guys had it right when we broke away from the European track towards socialism...
Can't stand much FOX, bent over right. MSNBC morning Joe's ok, the rest of MSNBC is bent too far left. All kinds of people think they're being patriotic by calling themselves "conservative". If you're an American "conservative", aren't you "conserving" the LIBERAL ideas that founded this country? These would be the LIBERAL notions that all men are created equal, that 99% of us do not exist merely to serve the pleasure of the wealthy and powerful? The LIBERAL notion that commoners can own property and have a say in their own government. Europe was not in any way headed toward socialism when we broke away, it was a collection of monarchies, nothing socialist about it. The sad truth is that most folks think that they need to support the Republicans to save them from the Democrats, or support the Democrats to save them from the Republicans, when in fact the whole thing is like a Marx Brothers movie: the two major parties are Groucho and Harpo keeping your attention elsewhere while Zeppo (Wall St.) picks your pockets clean.
Our country was not founded on radical principles. It is directly based off the principles of Ancient Greece and Rome. Starting with the entire idea of freedom started in Athens, democracy which was started in Athens, and a balanced constitution and government which was primarily seen in Sparta of all places in Greece. The Roman Republic was one of the main places the Founding Fathers looked to for guidance/liberty. Men like Cicero and Cato fought and died for liberty in the end of the days of the Republic. In a great display of historical irony, the Romans were far, far more free both economically and socially under the Caesars for the first few hundred years.
Unfortunately for our country, our downfall began during the American Civil War when Lincoln destroyed all state power and crushed that balance of power. While we credit Lincoln (and rightly so) with many great things, we will never be able to go back to our Founding principles the way our government is currently structured - far too much Federal Control. We are essentially now like the Roman Empire as far as a central governement, EXCEPT that now we have a massive and bloated central government that is completely incompetent, corrupt, and inefficient. Basically we have the strong central government but without the streamlined control of a single central figure. We're pretty much screwed, lol.
Our founding Fathers would be appalled at the level of corruption of the Federal Govt and our professional politicians. They always intended for the States to be preiminent, the citizens armed to protect themselves from their Govt, men to be free from unreasonble taxation, and for men to prosper from their own industry. Suggested reading: The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Our founding Fathers would be appalled at the level of corruption of the Federal Govt and our professional politicians. They always intended for the States to be preiminent, the citizens armed to protect themselves from their Govt, men to be free from unreasonble taxation, and for men to prosper from their own industry. Suggested reading: The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Agreed, way, WAY too much corruption in our political system.
Our founding Fathers would be appalled at the level of corruption of the Federal Govt and our professional politicians. They always intended for the States to be preiminent, the citizens armed to protect themselves from their Govt, men to be free from unreasonble taxation, and for men to prosper from their own industry. Suggested reading: The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Agreed, way, WAY too much corruption in our political system.
Yet you want to hand over one sixth of our entire economy over to this corrupt government with a single payer system? How does that honestly sound like it will fix anything?
I am a registered Republican for the record----just disappointed my party has gone away from alot of ideals it used to stand for. As for the guy with the fish in his pic (whose name escapes me) Squirrel retorted on my behalf and will just leave it prertty much at that, as the anger on behalf of fetuses and the concern over the family unit as opposed to fixing real issues like healthcare, economy, and immigration were prefectly displayed to show my ida of lowest common denominator-----Why go after isues that could cause you to lose your seat in congress when it would be much easier to talk about why 2 gays guys can bring about the downfall of our Republic?
Our founding Fathers would be appalled at the level of corruption of the Federal Govt and our professional politicians. They always intended for the States to be preiminent, the citizens armed to protect themselves from their Govt, men to be free from unreasonble taxation, and for men to prosper from their own industry. Suggested reading: The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Agreed, way, WAY too much corruption in our political system.
Yet you want to hand over one sixth of our entire economy over to this corrupt government with a single payer system? How does that honestly sound like it will fix anything?
Do you know what a single payer system is? But the thing about govt politicians, we as a people can vote them in or out, we can't touch corporate america and that is why having them in our politics like they are is a huge problem. As it is right now if they go against the big industries they can be bought out of their job.
Our founding Fathers would be appalled at the level of corruption of the Federal Govt and our professional politicians. They always intended for the States to be preiminent, the citizens armed to protect themselves from their Govt, men to be free from unreasonble taxation, and for men to prosper from their own industry. Suggested reading: The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Agreed, way, WAY too much corruption in our political system.
Yet you want to hand over one sixth of our entire economy over to this corrupt government with a single payer system? How does that honestly sound like it will fix anything?
Do you know what a single payer system is? But the thing about govt politicians, we as a people can vote them in or out, we can't touch corporate america and that is why having them in our politics like they are is a huge problem. As it is right now if they go against the big industries they can be bought out of their job.
Yes, I know exactly what a single payer system is. It is the quickest way to more corrupt government control over our life. You have talked about this very thing in expanding medicare to everyone, yet you fail to see that medicare has been a failure that has operated in the red every year since it was put into use. I can't for the life of me see why someone would suggest a total failure as the "fix all" to the nations health care problems.
On your second point it really holds no water at all. If what you said about corporations running the political world was true, then Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and even the late Teddy K. wouldn't have held office for the amount of time they have. Yes business has an interest in politics, as they should. Their livleyhoods are at stake as well at the hands of these power hungry poloticians on capitol hill. In our current government Unions have FAR more influence than any company around.
Our founding Fathers would be appalled at the level of corruption of the Federal Govt and our professional politicians. They always intended for the States to be preiminent, the citizens armed to protect themselves from their Govt, men to be free from unreasonble taxation, and for men to prosper from their own industry. Suggested reading: The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Agreed, way, WAY too much corruption in our political system.
Yet you want to hand over one sixth of our entire economy over to this corrupt government with a single payer system? How does that honestly sound like it will fix anything?
Do you know what a single payer system is? But the thing about govt politicians, we as a people can vote them in or out, we can't touch corporate america and that is why having them in our politics like they are is a huge problem. As it is right now if they go against the big industries they can be bought out of their job.
Yes, I know exactly what a single payer system is. It is the quickest way to more corrupt government control over our life. You have talked about this very thing in expanding medicare to everyone, yet you fail to see that medicare has been a failure that has operated in the red every year since it was put into use. I can't for the life of me see why someone would suggest a total failure as the "fix all" to the nations health care problems.
On your second point it really holds no water at all. If what you said about corporations running the political world was true, then Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and even the late Teddy K. wouldn't have held office for the amount of time they have. Yes business has an interest in politics, as they should. Their livleyhoods are at stake as well at the hands of these power hungry poloticians on capitol hill. In our current government Unions have FAR more influence than any company around.
Well there are a few problems with medicare but isn't not because of how it's handled or should I say people paying into the system (3-5 % overhead mind you). If everyone was in it then there would be much more money for it, for one. Also there are a lot of influences from the "system" that causes the pay issues. The elderly are the highest risk out of everyone, though they are the only one's using it. I also think the payout system to the doctor's needs revised as times have changed. The other option is have people at the mercy of a "for profit" system that, well that seems to work so well.
And the Unions don't have nearly the amount of money as the largest corporations that flood the halls of congress with their lobbyists. And YES there are many people that could care less what the big money wants. Alan Grassan is one of them and he is polling well in Florida. Why was the first Gulf War fought? OIL, why was Iraq fought? OIL! Why was 800 plus billion given to wall street without a thought? Because of the control over congress. But hell when US auto makers need a loan all kinds of *** hits the fan. The people of this country have became worthless and the rich have more power than the people. The wealth in this country has shifted so much that the commons make up less than the big money corporations and wealthy which is unprecedented. Why is it so hard for you to see this? It's just easier to blame the one's who want to give more control to the people... I hear it a lot on the Right.
but isn't not because of how it's handled or should I say people paying into the system (3-5 % overhead mind you). If everyone was in it then there would be much more money for it, for one. Also there are a lot of influences from the "system" that causes the pay issues. The elderly are the highest risk out of everyone, though they are the only one's using it. I also think the payout system to the doctor's needs revised as times have changed. The other option is have people at the mercy of a "for profit" system that, well that seems to work so well.
actually the problem is EXACTLY because of how it is handled. one entity, group, company, person, or government cannot possibly be able to understand every cost on every level of a system as complex as providing health care for a group of people, let alone EVERYONE. this is why the free market system will work better. when an issue comes up this creates demand. a company that specializes in this issue will be able to focus on is with an understanding of that issue that nobody can compare to. this infinitely complex system can adapt very fast. a government bureaucracy moves very slow and cannot keep up with the constantly changing demands of the system. no amount of money will solve that. more money will only create more slow moving bureaucracy.
phobicsquirrel:
And the Unions don't have nearly the amount of money as the largest corporations that flood the halls of congress with their lobbyists.
true. corporations are owned by people. those people have every right to spend their money the way they see fit so long as it does not violate the rights of others.
phobicsquirrel:
Why was the first Gulf War fought? OIL, why was Iraq fought? OIL!
there is WAY more to it than that. was it part of it? sure. but if oil was the reason to spend all that money why wouldnt the US spend WAY WAY less and just open up drilling here? some estimate that the US has more oil than the entire middle east
and what about the fact that we do nt get much of our oil from there.
"According to data from the US Department of Energy, of the top five suppliers of crude oil to the US only one, Saudi Arabia, is a Middle East exporter. In March 2008, the US imported 1.795 million barrels per day (b/d) from Canada, 1.535 million b/d from Saudi Arabia, 1.214 million b/d from Mexico, 1.154 million b/d from Nigeria, and 858,000 b/d from Venezuela. These top five suppliers accounted for 68 percent of total US crude oil imports"
Link
phobicsquirrel:
Why was 800 plus billion given to wall street without a thought? Because of the control over congress.
close. because government was doing what it does best: taking over our lives and companies. power was there, but it was a power grab by the US government.
phobicsquirrel:
The people of this country have became worthless and the rich have more power than the people. The wealth in this country has shifted so much that the commons make up less than the big money corporations and wealthy which is unprecedented. Why is it so hard for you to see this? It's just easier to blame the one's who want to give more control to the people... I hear it a lot on the Right.
so... are you saying that punishing the rich and destroying their wealth will help the poor? destroying wealth has never been a solution to poverty. if these "evil rich" have violated rights to get the money they have, then i agree with you, they should be punished. if there has been no violation of rights, then good for them. they are living the dream. they can spend their money however they see fit, providing they dont violate the rights of others.
...backing candidates you dont like included.
Our founding Fathers would be appalled at the level of corruption of the Federal Govt and our professional politicians. They always intended for the States to be preiminent, the citizens armed to protect themselves from their Govt, men to be free from unreasonble taxation, and for men to prosper from their own industry. Suggested reading: The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Agreed, way, WAY too much corruption in our political system.
Yet you want to hand over one sixth of our entire economy over to this corrupt government with a single payer system? How does that honestly sound like it will fix anything?
Do you know what a single payer system is? But the thing about govt politicians, we as a people can vote them in or out, we can't touch corporate america and that is why having them in our politics like they are is a huge problem. As it is right now if they go against the big industries they can be bought out of their job.
Yes, I know exactly what a single payer system is. It is the quickest way to more corrupt government control over our life. You have talked about this very thing in expanding medicare to everyone, yet you fail to see that medicare has been a failure that has operated in the red every year since it was put into use. I can't for the life of me see why someone would suggest a total failure as the "fix all" to the nations health care problems.
On your second point it really holds no water at all. If what you said about corporations running the political world was true, then Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and even the late Teddy K. wouldn't have held office for the amount of time they have. Yes business has an interest in politics, as they should. Their livleyhoods are at stake as well at the hands of these power hungry poloticians on capitol hill. In our current government Unions have FAR more influence than any company around.
Well there are a few problems with medicare but isn't not because of how it's handled or should I say people paying into the system (3-5 % overhead mind you). If everyone was in it then there would be much more money for it, for one. Also there are a lot of influences from the "system" that causes the pay issues. The elderly are the highest risk out of everyone, though they are the only one's using it. I also think the payout system to the doctor's needs revised as times have changed. The other option is have people at the mercy of a "for profit" system that, well that seems to work so well.
And the Unions don't have nearly the amount of money as the largest corporations that flood the halls of congress with their lobbyists. And YES there are many people that could care less what the big money wants. Alan Grassan is one of them and he is polling well in Florida. Why was the first Gulf War fought? OIL, why was Iraq fought? OIL! Why was 800 plus billion given to wall street without a thought? Because of the control over congress. But hell when US auto makers need a loan all kinds of *** hits the fan. The people of this country have became worthless and the rich have more power than the people. The wealth in this country has shifted so much that the commons make up less than the big money corporations and wealthy which is unprecedented. Why is it so hard for you to see this? It's just easier to blame the one's who want to give more control to the people... I hear it a lot on the Right.
It's funny that you talk about corporations corupting politicians, but if it wasn't for the greed of the politicians this wouldn't be a problem. Yet you still want to hand over control of more and more of our lives to these greedy corupt political figures who have no idea what it is like to live in the real world anymore. Thomas Paine spoke out in his book Common Sense, about how out of touch with the common man the monarchy had become in Englad after years of being "above the peasants." This attitude, which our founders were hoping to avoid, has crept into our own system through career politicians who care about nothing other than preserving their own job. They know the more control and more power they hold over their citizens, the harder it is to get them out of office. This is why I have a hard time understanding why your solution to one system of coruption, is to hand over the reigns to the most corupt part of that system...
Can't stand much FOX, bent over right. MSNBC morning Joe's ok, the rest of MSNBC is bent too far left. All kinds of people think they're being patriotic by calling themselves "conservative". If you're an American "conservative", aren't you "conserving" the LIBERAL ideas that founded this country? These would be the LIBERAL notions that all men are created equal, that 99% of us do not exist merely to serve the pleasure of the wealthy and powerful? The LIBERAL notion that commoners can own property and have a say in their own government. Europe was not in any way headed toward socialism when we broke away, it was a collection of monarchies, nothing socialist about it. The sad truth is that most folks think that they need to support the Republicans to save them from the Democrats, or support the Democrats to save them from the Republicans, when in fact the whole thing is like a Marx Brothers movie: the two major parties are Groucho and Harpo keeping your attention elsewhere while Zeppo (Wall St.) picks your pockets clean.
Our country was not founded on radical principles. It is directly based off the principles of Ancient Greece and Rome. Starting with the entire idea of freedom started in Athens, democracy which was started in Athens, and a balanced constitution and government which was primarily seen in Sparta of all places in Greece. The Roman Republic was one of the main places the Founding Fathers looked to for guidance/liberty. Men like Cicero and Cato fought and died for liberty in the end of the days of the Republic. In a great display of historical irony, the Romans were far, far more free both economically and socially under the Caesars for the first few hundred years.
Unfortunately for our country, our downfall began during the American Civil War when Lincoln destroyed all state power and crushed that balance of power. While we credit Lincoln (and rightly so) with many great things, we will never be able to go back to our Founding principles the way our government is currently structured - far too much Federal Control. We are essentially now like the Roman Empire as far as a central governement, EXCEPT that now we have a massive and bloated central government that is completely incompetent, corrupt, and inefficient. Basically we have the strong central government but without the streamlined control of a single central figure. We're pretty much screwed, lol.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Tatuaje, you're almost right. I guess I need to explain two things. First, when I use the term Liberal, I'm using it in its original uncorrupted form: "one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways" (Webster's). Most of ya'll have been taught by the right wing scream machine that Liberal = Socialist. Not so. To reflect my point of view, understand that I consider Hillary Clinton to be a socialist, NOT a liberal. For a good explanation of this you might try reading "Libertarianism, a Primer" by David Boaz, published by the CATO institute. (hardly a left-wing reference) Secondly, while you correctly point that the founding fathers using the (liberal) democratic ideals of the ancient Greeks as their model, you may need reminding that more than 17 centuries passed between then and the American Revolution. The ideas that: a common person has the right to question authority without being jailed for his question, an individual needn't be a member of the official state church, and especially that the populace could not be governed without their consent, (see Thomas Paine, Common Sense) were, in fact, outrageously radical proposals. These ideas were so far from the norm that even George Washington and John Adams had their detractors imprisoned, free political speech not reaching official acceptance until the presidency of James Madison. Also, some of you have expressed the opinion above that corporations need not be feared because they don't have rights like you and I. This was correct until a few weeks ago when the Gang of Five on the Supreme Court overturned all precedent and declared that the constitution guarantees them the same rights as real live human beings. This means, effectively, that corporations, even foreign owned corporations can "speak", with their money, in influencing our elections. I'm most disappointed in Clarence Thomas, because I thought that he was an originalist on constitutional matters. I already knew that Scalia was an activist judge, legislating from the bench in favor of Wall St., but Thomas, very disappointing. The Democrats and the Republicans are like the left and right hands, fingers clasped and applying pressure together. We're what's in the middle. Neither of these entities is interested in protecting your freedom. Government is like a trained elephant, very useful if carefully controlled, deadly dangerous if allowed to run amok.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Let's not forget that it's the left in this country that wants to take away your right to enjoy a cigar indoors and tax your cigars to the point where they are priced prohibitively.
but isn't not because of how it's handled or should I say people paying into the system (3-5 % overhead mind you). If everyone was in it then there would be much more money for it, for one. Also there are a lot of influences from the "system" that causes the pay issues. The elderly are the highest risk out of everyone, though they are the only one's using it. I also think the payout system to the doctor's needs revised as times have changed. The other option is have people at the mercy of a "for profit" system that, well that seems to work so well.
actually the problem is EXACTLY because of how it is handled. one entity, group, company, person, or government cannot possibly be able to understand every cost on every level of a system as complex as providing health care for a group of people, let alone EVERYONE. this is why the free market system will work better. when an issue comes up this creates demand. a company that specializes in this issue will be able to focus on is with an understanding of that issue that nobody can compare to. this infinitely complex system can adapt very fast. a government bureaucracy moves very slow and cannot keep up with the constantly changing demands of the system. no amount of money will solve that. more money will only create more slow moving bureaucracy.
phobicsquirrel:
And the Unions don't have nearly the amount of money as the largest corporations that flood the halls of congress with their lobbyists.
true. corporations are owned by people. those people have every right to spend their money the way they see fit so long as it does not violate the rights of others.
phobicsquirrel:
Why was the first Gulf War fought? OIL, why was Iraq fought? OIL!
there is WAY more to it than that. was it part of it? sure. but if oil was the reason to spend all that money why wouldnt the US spend WAY WAY less and just open up drilling here? some estimate that the US has more oil than the entire middle east
and what about the fact that we do nt get much of our oil from there.
"According to data from the US Department of Energy, of the top five suppliers of crude oil to the US only one, Saudi Arabia, is a Middle East exporter. In March 2008, the US imported 1.795 million barrels per day (b/d) from Canada, 1.535 million b/d from Saudi Arabia, 1.214 million b/d from Mexico, 1.154 million b/d from Nigeria, and 858,000 b/d from Venezuela. These top five suppliers accounted for 68 percent of total US crude oil imports"
Link
phobicsquirrel:
Why was 800 plus billion given to wall street without a thought? Because of the control over congress.
close. because government was doing what it does best: taking over our lives and companies. power was there, but it was a power grab by the US government.
phobicsquirrel:
The people of this country have became worthless and the rich have more power than the people. The wealth in this country has shifted so much that the commons make up less than the big money corporations and wealthy which is unprecedented. Why is it so hard for you to see this? It's just easier to blame the one's who want to give more control to the people... I hear it a lot on the Right.
so... are you saying that punishing the rich and destroying their wealth will help the poor? destroying wealth has never been a solution to poverty. if these "evil rich" have violated rights to get the money they have, then i agree with you, they should be punished. if there has been no violation of rights, then good for them. they are living the dream. they can spend their money however they see fit, providing they dont violate the rights of others.
...backing candidates you dont like included.
Also Medicare has less people in it's coverage than the big insurers. There is no denying there are a lot of issues with medicare which is why they need to be addressed.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/republicans_for_waste_and_abus.html
About Iraq, yes we don't get most of our oil from there but that is the big question, WHY? Why are we there. I personally think it is because of oil in some way or another. Why else would our country be in that god forsaken part of the world? Maybe there is a real reason but I find it hard to believe. If it was because of being NOBEL then that's great but there are many other places that need assistance but they are poor, very poor.
And that 800 billion was giving out because of the bush admin's buddies in wallstreet needed help and paulson tried pushing it through with one page of legislation! Though I wish to hell the democrats would have denied it all together it still passed but the crap that was being spewed by the bush admin was total fear. One thing I do admire about the republicans any more is their lock step ranks if only they used it for the bettering of the people not their donors and corporate masters.
Let's not forget that it's the left in this country that wants to take away your right to enjoy a cigar indoors and tax your cigars to the point where they are priced prohibitively.
I do feel that the left are way too eager to quell tobacco, which is sad. Though I want children to have healthy lives I don't want it to be paid for by taxing cigars. Though the republicans and yes I think some democrats are for the big businesses and could care less about we the people. A power point leaked about the GOP strategy and here is a little bit of info on that, what a great way of a party to act and to keep the fear going. http://www.johnennis.tv/blog/leaked-more-secret-rnc-power-point-slides/, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866_Page2.html.
your second link is the same info i posted so i will refer to your fist link. first, thanks for posting it. good info is always wanted. the biggest part of your argument comes from this sentence:
"What is at issue is the fact that at first glance Medicare does deny more claims than private insurance corporations. However, private insurance firms do not experience nearly the same number of reporting errors as Medicare."
part of my argument was that having more people on / throwing more money at medicare will not solve the problem, it will just create more bureaucracy. the above quote seems to prove that. does it really matter why the claims were denied? they were. and the more BS bureaucracy there is the more claims will be denied because of it. even looking at your "entire story" the solution doesnt look so good.
phobicsquirrel:
Also Medicare has less people in it's coverage than the big insurers.
than all of them together? or on an individual basis? according to the second link you provided they had more than six times the number of claims than the next insurer. that chart didnt list every insurer in the US so i cant add them up...
phobicsquirrel:
There is no denying there are a lot of issues with medicare which is why they need to be addressed.
that is one of the problems that needs to be addressed. the problem in this article is that the government doesnt have to turn a profit to function. businesses do. for private companies to compete with medicare, medicare had to raise its reimbursement.
the main point in this article is this bit here: "The problem with government programs, we're often told, is that they are expensive and wasteful, and the private market could do better. But faced with an instance where the government program proved relatively lean and efficient, and the private market expensive and wasteful, Republicans have mounted a ferocious defense of the market's right to continue burning through taxpayer dollars." the only problem is that this market is so highly regulated by the government already that it can in no way run efficiently. it is not a free market at all. regulations made by the government have forced the price up then the government comes in and says that the insurance system failed. of course it failed. the government has forced it through regulation to act in a way that it was not intended to do. the government makes a program that is less wasteful than they are forcing the insurance companies to be and claim that the government is the solution. government is the problem
phobicsquirrel:
About Iraq, yes we don't get most of our oil from there but that is the big question, WHY? Why are we there. I personally think it is because of oil in some way or another. Why else would our country be in that god forsaken part of the world? Maybe there is a real reason but I find it hard to believe. If it was because of being NOBEL then that's great but there are many other places that need assistance but they are poor, very poor.
i think there are reasons why we went. how many of them are good? iduno is oil one of the reasons? maybe is it the ONLY reason? probably not.
all interesting articles. but the question remains: how do you fix this "problem" without violating the rights of the individual? you may not like rich people or many of their attitudes, but they are people and they do have rights. your links all point out that the rich are getting richer. the real question is how do you get the poor out of poverty with out violating the rights of the rich? if the rich didnt violate any rights earning their money, they should not be punished in any way. the followup question is: how do you get the poor out of poverty without violating the rights of the poor? force them to work? force them to heal from that injury? force them to go back to school?
a sad fact will always remain: there will always be poor people no matter what we do.
phobicsquirrel:
And that 800 billion was giving out because of the bush admin's buddies in wallstreet needed help and paulson tried pushing it through with one page of legislation! Though I wish to hell the democrats would have denied it all together it still passed
the democrats had the majority at the time. it isnt Bushes fault. he couldnt do anything about it.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."
A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can propose tax measures or veto them but since Congress can ignore presidential proposals and override a presidential veto, it has the ultimate taxing power. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. As such, presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time.
phobicsquirrel:
but the crap that was being spewed by the bush admin was total fear.
just like the filth that the democrats spew about how evil big business is? or how many people are killed a year because we dont have single payer insurance? how is that any different? really?
phobicsquirrel:
One thing I do admire about the republicans any more is their lock step ranks if only they used it for the bettering of the people not their donors and corporate masters.
the same thing could be said about both parties. each party has its special interest groups that pour in billions of dollars every year.
saying its only a republican issue is doing what you accused me of earlier: telling half truths.
this IS part of the problem. in this instance, drugs were put out for uses they were not intended for. this IS the time the government should step in. the governments only job should be to uphold the rights of the individual. in this instance the rights of the patients taking the drugs were violated. that IS a problem. this does not mean that the government should take over the industry. it means that the company should be fairly punished. if the problem didnt cause much harm then the punishment shouldnt be that great. a drug that is dispensed not for its intended use but still does no major harm is nowhere near as bad as one that kills people.
government has violated rights as well. just because it is the government running health care does not mean at all that it will be fair.
our government has a long history of violating the rights of the individual. if they would take on the roll of upholding them, the drug companies (or any other company) would not be able to get away with it.
this also does not mean that the drug company has more power than the government. it means that the government mismanaged the process of upholding the rights of the individual.
afterthought:
if i am offered a bribe and accept it, i am just as bad as, if not worse than, the person offering. just because a big business offers bribes to politicians (on both sides) doesnt mean the politicians have to take them. but they (on both sides) do this to me may be a bigger problem then the corporations themselves.
what is also interesting is that if this bill passes there will be MORE corporate entanglement with the government. we will all be mandated to buy insurance. isnt that the insurance industry entangling with the government? wont they just have more lobbying leverage?
Tatuaje, you're almost right. I guess I need to explain two things. First, when I use the term Liberal, I'm using it in its original uncorrupted form: "one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways" (Webster's). Most of ya'll have been taught by the right wing scream machine that Liberal = Socialist. Not so. To reflect my point of view, understand that I consider Hillary Clinton to be a socialist, NOT a liberal. For a good explanation of this you might try reading "Libertarianism, a Primer" by David Boaz, published by the CATO institute. (hardly a left-wing reference) Secondly, while you correctly point that the founding fathers using the (liberal) democratic ideals of the ancient Greeks as their model, you may need reminding that more than 17 centuries passed between then and the American Revolution. The ideas that: a common person has the right to question authority without being jailed for his question, an individual needn't be a member of the official state church, and especially that the populace could not be governed without their consent, (see Thomas Paine, Common Sense) were, in fact, outrageously radical proposals. These ideas were so far from the norm that even George Washington and John Adams had their detractors imprisoned, free political speech not reaching official acceptance until the presidency of James Madison. Also, some of you have expressed the opinion above that corporations need not be feared because they don't have rights like you and I. This was correct until a few weeks ago when the Gang of Five on the Supreme Court overturned all precedent and declared that the constitution guarantees them the same rights as real live human beings. This means, effectively, that corporations, even foreign owned corporations can "speak", with their money, in influencing our elections. I'm most disappointed in Clarence Thomas, because I thought that he was an originalist on constitutional matters. I already knew that Scalia was an activist judge, legislating from the bench in favor of Wall St., but Thomas, very disappointing. The Democrats and the Republicans are like the left and right hands, fingers clasped and applying pressure together. We're what's in the middle. Neither of these entities is interested in protecting your freedom. Government is like a trained elephant, very useful if carefully controlled, deadly dangerous if allowed to run amok.
You aren't the first on here to attack the Supreme Court for the ruling on corporate spending on political advertising, and it still escapes me why anyone would attack the courts for upholding the Constitution... Where in our Constitution does it limit freedom of speech in any way, shape, or form? I've asked this over and over yet nobody seems to have an actual answer... They just keep spouting that it's corrupting our government. Even if that is true, that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional... Corporations are made up of people who have the same rights as anyone else.
Comments
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I keep thinking about this too. The men at the first constitutional convention were some visionary thinkers. Too bad things have moved so far away from that. I see your LIBERAL ideas above. IMO this more progressive (probably I'm just getting hung up on terminology) than liberal or conservative. Add separation of church and state to that list. I'm sure established governments at the time were getting a real chuckle out of that one.
Oh and tea bagger is fine. These people wore tea bags on their heads, I think some have their mind way too far in the gutter.
Unfortunately for our country, our downfall began during the American Civil War when Lincoln destroyed all state power and crushed that balance of power. While we credit Lincoln (and rightly so) with many great things, we will never be able to go back to our Founding principles the way our government is currently structured - far too much Federal Control. We are essentially now like the Roman Empire as far as a central governement, EXCEPT that now we have a massive and bloated central government that is completely incompetent, corrupt, and inefficient. Basically we have the strong central government but without the streamlined control of a single central figure. We're pretty much screwed, lol.
On your second point it really holds no water at all. If what you said about corporations running the political world was true, then Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and even the late Teddy K. wouldn't have held office for the amount of time they have. Yes business has an interest in politics, as they should. Their livleyhoods are at stake as well at the hands of these power hungry poloticians on capitol hill. In our current government Unions have FAR more influence than any company around.
And the Unions don't have nearly the amount of money as the largest corporations that flood the halls of congress with their lobbyists. And YES there are many people that could care less what the big money wants. Alan Grassan is one of them and he is polling well in Florida. Why was the first Gulf War fought? OIL, why was Iraq fought? OIL! Why was 800 plus billion given to wall street without a thought? Because of the control over congress. But hell when US auto makers need a loan all kinds of *** hits the fan. The people of this country have became worthless and the rich have more power than the people. The wealth in this country has shifted so much that the commons make up less than the big money corporations and wealthy which is unprecedented. Why is it so hard for you to see this? It's just easier to blame the one's who want to give more control to the people... I hear it a lot on the Right.
medicare denies more claims than any private insurer
medicare costs doctors more money than its worth leading to denial of service or inferior care
Medicare is steadily loosing money
medicare fraud is easy and costs americans millions annually
actually the problem is EXACTLY because of how it is handled.
one entity, group, company, person, or government cannot possibly be able to understand every cost on every level of a system as complex as providing health care for a group of people, let alone EVERYONE. this is why the free market system will work better. when an issue comes up this creates demand. a company that specializes in this issue will be able to focus on is with an understanding of that issue that nobody can compare to. this infinitely complex system can adapt very fast. a government bureaucracy moves very slow and cannot keep up with the constantly changing demands of the system. no amount of money will solve that. more money will only create more slow moving bureaucracy.
true.
corporations are owned by people. those people have every right to spend their money the way they see fit so long as it does not violate the rights of others. there is WAY more to it than that. was it part of it? sure. but if oil was the reason to spend all that money why wouldnt the US spend WAY WAY less and just open up drilling here? some estimate that the US has more oil than the entire middle east
and what about the fact that we do nt get much of our oil from there.
"According to data from the US Department of Energy, of the top five suppliers of crude oil to the US only one, Saudi Arabia, is a Middle East exporter. In March 2008, the US imported 1.795 million barrels per day (b/d) from Canada, 1.535 million b/d from Saudi Arabia, 1.214 million b/d from Mexico, 1.154 million b/d from Nigeria, and 858,000 b/d from Venezuela. These top five suppliers accounted for 68 percent of total US crude oil imports"
Link close.
because government was doing what it does best: taking over our lives and companies. power was there, but it was a power grab by the US government. so... are you saying that punishing the rich and destroying their wealth will help the poor? destroying wealth has never been a solution to poverty.
if these "evil rich" have violated rights to get the money they have, then i agree with you, they should be punished. if there has been no violation of rights, then good for them. they are living the dream. they can spend their money however they see fit, providing they dont violate the rights of others.
...backing candidates you dont like included.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=44f21cbb-e8fe-41c0-ba33-1e6d05473913 - ol coburn spreading half truths and half the information and has spewed all over the net. I would think more of your detective skills.
Also Medicare has less people in it's coverage than the big insurers. There is no denying there are a lot of issues with medicare which is why they need to be addressed.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/republicans_for_waste_and_abus.html
About Iraq, yes we don't get most of our oil from there but that is the big question, WHY? Why are we there. I personally think it is because of oil in some way or another. Why else would our country be in that god forsaken part of the world? Maybe there is a real reason but I find it hard to believe. If it was because of being NOBEL then that's great but there are many other places that need assistance but they are poor, very poor.
Back to the "I want to take wealth from wealthy people and give to the poor" argument you like to point out. I do not, but what I do want is for there to be a equal footing as right now there is not.
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2006-11-24-luxury-homes-usat_x.htm
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-09-02/opinion/17157483_1_health-coverage-census-bureau-census-numbers
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_44/b3906038_mz007.htm
http://www.businesspundit.com/wealth-distribution-in-the-united-states/
And that 800 billion was giving out because of the bush admin's buddies in wallstreet needed help and paulson tried pushing it through with one page of legislation! Though I wish to hell the democrats would have denied it all together it still passed but the crap that was being spewed by the bush admin was total fear. One thing I do admire about the republicans any more is their lock step ranks if only they used it for the bettering of the people not their donors and corporate masters.
Just an example of how large companies (drug company in this case) have more power than the govt or the govt just doesn't have teeth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031905578.html. Either way you look at it, things need to change.
your second link is the same info i posted so i will refer to your fist link.
first, thanks for posting it. good info is always wanted.
the biggest part of your argument comes from this sentence:
"What is at issue is the fact that at first glance Medicare does deny more claims than private insurance corporations. However, private insurance firms do not experience nearly the same number of reporting errors as Medicare."
part of my argument was that having more people on / throwing more money at medicare will not solve the problem, it will just create more bureaucracy. the above quote seems to prove that. does it really matter why the claims were denied? they were. and the more BS bureaucracy there is the more claims will be denied because of it. even looking at your "entire story" the solution doesnt look so good. than all of them together? or on an individual basis? according to the second link you provided they had more than six times the number of claims than the next insurer.
that chart didnt list every insurer in the US so i cant add them up... that is one of the problems that needs to be addressed. the problem in this article is that the government doesnt have to turn a profit to function. businesses do. for private companies to compete with medicare, medicare had to raise its reimbursement.
the main point in this article is this bit here:
"The problem with government programs, we're often told, is that they are expensive and wasteful, and the private market could do better. But faced with an instance where the government program proved relatively lean and efficient, and the private market expensive and wasteful, Republicans have mounted a ferocious defense of the market's right to continue burning through taxpayer dollars."
the only problem is that this market is so highly regulated by the government already that it can in no way run efficiently. it is not a free market at all. regulations made by the government have forced the price up then the government comes in and says that the insurance system failed. of course it failed. the government has forced it through regulation to act in a way that it was not intended to do. the government makes a program that is less wasteful than they are forcing the insurance companies to be and claim that the government is the solution.
government is the problem
i think there are reasons why we went. how many of them are good?
iduno
is oil one of the reasons?
maybe
is it the ONLY reason?
probably not.
all interesting articles. but the question remains:
how do you fix this "problem" without violating the rights of the individual? you may not like rich people or many of their attitudes, but they are people and they do have rights. your links all point out that the rich are getting richer. the real question is how do you get the poor out of poverty with out violating the rights of the rich? if the rich didnt violate any rights earning their money, they should not be punished in any way.
the followup question is:
how do you get the poor out of poverty without violating the rights of the poor?
force them to work? force them to heal from that injury? force them to go back to school?
a sad fact will always remain:
there will always be poor people no matter what we do. the democrats had the majority at the time. it isnt Bushes fault. he couldnt do anything about it.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."
A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can propose tax measures or veto them but since Congress can ignore presidential proposals and override a presidential veto, it has the ultimate taxing power. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. As such, presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time. just like the filth that the democrats spew about how evil big business is?
or how many people are killed a year because we dont have single payer insurance?
how is that any different? really? the same thing could be said about both parties. each party has its special interest groups that pour in billions of dollars every year. saying its only a republican issue is doing what you accused me of earlier:
telling half truths. this IS part of the problem. in this instance, drugs were put out for uses they were not intended for. this IS the time the government should step in. the governments only job should be to uphold the rights of the individual. in this instance the rights of the patients taking the drugs were violated. that IS a problem.
this does not mean that the government should take over the industry. it means that the company should be fairly punished. if the problem didnt cause much harm then the punishment shouldnt be that great. a drug that is dispensed not for its intended use but still does no major harm is nowhere near as bad as one that kills people.
government has violated rights as well. just because it is the government running health care does not mean at all that it will be fair.
our government has a long history of violating the rights of the individual. if they would take on the roll of upholding them, the drug companies (or any other company) would not be able to get away with it.
this also does not mean that the drug company has more power than the government. it means that the government mismanaged the process of upholding the rights of the individual.
if i am offered a bribe and accept it, i am just as bad as, if not worse than, the person offering. just because a big business offers bribes to politicians (on both sides) doesnt mean the politicians have to take them.
but they (on both sides) do
this to me may be a bigger problem then the corporations themselves.
what is also interesting is that if this bill passes there will be MORE corporate entanglement with the government. we will all be mandated to buy insurance. isnt that the insurance industry entangling with the government? wont they just have more lobbying leverage?