HR3200 - America on the road to communism!

[lcaillo]

SteveCallas wrote:

...only helps to be accepting of stances that contradict what this country was founded on. This country has been the greatest because of the vision and execution of the founding fathers. Their intent was simple - minimize the role of government as much as possible and let personal responsibility be the primary driver. It won't remain the greatest if we keep slipping away from that intent.

If that is the ONLY thing that you can see that my statement does, you are really missing the point. There is always value in understanding the position of your opposition. There may also be some value in their arguments that we have not seen. Finally, there might be some hope of convincing them of the value in conservative thought.

Anyone who is so certain of their position and the absolute incorrectness of that of his opponent is on a sure path to failure. OUr founding fathers had some pretty heated debates on a number of issues. The idea that they should not engage in debate and not fully understand the merits that their opponents found in their positions would have been nonsensical to them.

[Richard W. Haines]

Leonard,

I like you and we agree on many things. But you seem to have elected yourself
as the mediator here framing the debates. If you look back on my posts I have given
many examples and historical background of the Keynesian and Supply Side formulas.
And I will and have discussed issues with liberals, moderates and conservatives.
What I do think is hopeless is to argue with Leftists which is another category.
Those are people whose world view is so blatantly un-Constitutional (like a Monarchist)
that to give them a forum is to legitimize them which I don't think is necessary and
probably self-destructive.

Before you classify this statement as a rant, I'll give you an example.
There are Universities where Leftists have gained enough
influence to enforce 'speech codes' on campus (i.e. Shippensburg University, PA).
Should we discuss or negotiate what words and thoughts are 'allowed' with them?
I say absolutely not. To engage in this argument is giving validity to a policy that
is violation of the First Amendment. I am certain of that and the incorrectness
of the opponent.

I see no purpose in debating policies that aren't Constitutional or democratic
to begin with. This would apply to areas like the Fed taking over heathcare or any
part of the private sector, banning all guns, speech codes, race norming test results,
giving up our sovereignty to the UN and other preposterous Leftist proposals and
legislation. If you want to engage them be my guest and I wish you luck. I really don't
have the patience and it does seem as if this thread is going around in circles.

Outside of this thread, in the national policial area we have a cabal (Obama, Pelosi,
Franks etc.) that is circumventing democratic procedure and passing legislation like
the Stimulus bill without advise and consent or giving anyone enough time to read it.
So what is there to talk about there? Our input is of no consequence in these
circumstances.

If you want to discuss how to remove the cabal from power and/or neutralize them in the
next election cycle, we can discuss that strategy at a later point in another thread.
And if conservatives in both parties take back our government then the first thing I would
advocate is repealing every piece of leglislation that was passed without advise and
consent. It could then be re-presented it in the proper fashion with input from all sides
with the appropriate compromises. That would not be a waste of time and would be quite
interesting and 'democratic' small d.

[doug s.]

Richard W. Haines wrote:

You're very patient talking with doug but I wouldn't know where to begin.
Look at the above post claiming that the corporations
are the real controllers of power? If so then why are they begging the
Fed for bail outs?

if the corporations were not the real controllers of power, all the begging in the world wouldn't have gotten them a single penny. the simple fact is, that much as you hate welfare, i hate it too - especially corporate welfare, which dwarfs what taxpayers spend on social welfare.

Richard W. Haines wrote:

I should've quit while I while I was ahead...

when was that?

doug s.

[doug s.]

lcaillo wrote:

By simply giving up and saying that there is no common ground, you are making the problem worse. What you need to understand is that you never were "ahead" in any way other than you got to make your rant, just like doug s. made his. You have not really taken on any single topin in a meaningful way and tried to have a reasonable discussion. In this way, you simply perpetuate the problem. Dialogue and debate about the specifics of what we should do and why, and what we believe to be the fundamental values and principles upon which our society should be structured are the only way we will ever come to a civil set of solutions. We will continue with politics as usual as long as each side blames the other and refuses to consider where we do agree. You and doug s. are a very good microcosm for understanding the larger problem.

lcaillo, i agree w/much of what you say. of course, i take exception to the fact that my posts are rants, and that i take the view that, (to paraphrase you), it's "my way or the highway". this is not the case at all. while i do feel strongly about what i feel is important, i have taken on specific topics and explained why i felt my position was walid. and, unlike the other person to which you refer, i have stated up-front that i agree w/you - "Dialogue and debate about the specifics of what we should do and why, and what we believe to be the fundamental values and principles upon which our society should be structured are the only way we will ever come to a civil set of solutions. We will continue with politics as usual as long as each side blames the other and refuses to consider where we do agree." unlike the other person to whom you refer, who has explicitly and categorically rejected your position.

doug s.

[lcaillo]

doug s. wrote:

lcaillo, i agree w/much of what you say. of course, i take exception to the fact that my posts are rants, and that i take the view that, (to paraphrase you), it's "my way or the highway". this is not the case at all. while i do feel strongly about what i feel is important, i have taken on specific topics and explained why i felt my position was walid. and, unlike the other person to which you refer, i have stated up-front that i agree w/you - "Dialogue and debate about the specifics of what we should do and why, and what we believe to be the fundamental values and principles upon which our society should be structured are the only way we will ever come to a civil set of solutions. We will continue with politics as usual as long as each side blames the other and refuses to consider where we do agree." unlike the other person to whom you refer, who has explicitly and categorically rejected your position.

doug s.

doug s.,

You demonstrate your own intransigence and need to understand clearly, that it is not MY way or the highway, it is the forum rules or the highway. It is the opinion of the forum owners that some or your posts are rants, as well as mine, so you might as well let that one go. Ranting about one's feelings and opinions is not a violation of forum rules, but will often have offending content. Your repeated testing of the limits is tiring. It is clear that you either don't get it or you wish to be banned. Your continued lack of capitalization is the most blatant and recent example. I will defend your right to express your views to the death, but you will do so within the rules of the forum. I suggest you focus on the issues rather than who is posting what.

Others have a right to agree or disagree. If they cannot be convinced of the value of engaging their opponents on the merits of the relative positions, then they can stay in their corners.

[doug s.]

Richard W. Haines wrote:

Leonard,

I like you and we agree on many things. But you seem to have elected yourself
as the mediator here framing the debates. If you look back on my posts I have given
many examples and historical background of the Keynesian and Supply Side formulas.
And I will and have discussed issues with liberals, moderates and conservatives.
What I do think is hopeless is to argue with Leftists which is another category.
Those are people whose world view is so blatantly un-Constitutional (like a Monarchist)
that to give them a forum is to legitimize them which I don't think is necessary and
probably self-destructive.

i am happy to pick an issue that is dear to the hearts of "right-wingers", and show you why it is "so blatantly un-Constitutional", yet is law, or right-wingers are trying to make it law. but, because reasonable men can differ, does this mean we should shut off all debate, because "you right-wingers are hopeless, you are people whose world-wiew is blatantly un-constitutional"?

Richard W. Haines wrote:

Before you classify this statement as a rant, I'll give you an example.
There are Universities where Leftists have gained enough
influence to enforce 'speech codes' on campus (i.e. Shippensburg University, PA).
Should we discuss or negotiate what words and thoughts are 'allowed' with them?
I say absolutely not. To engage in this argument is giving validity to a policy that
is violation of the First Amendment. I am certain of that and the incorrectness
of the opponent.

I see no purpose in debating policies that aren't Constitutional or democratic
to begin with. This would apply to areas like the Fed taking over heathcare or any
part of the private sector, banning all guns, speech codes, race norming test results,
giving up our sovereignty to the UN and other preposterous Leftist proposals and
legislation. If you want to engage them be my guest and I wish you luck. I really don't
have the patience and it does seem as if this thread is going around in circles.

it may surprise you to find that i also find enforcement of "politically correct" speech to be vile. however, you completely miss the boat by refusing to debate what is and what is not protected speech under the first amendment. like it or not, reasonable people can & will disagree. does that mean you refuse to discuss, because, your view is the only correct one, and everyone else is a leftist idiot? like it or not, what is "blatantly unconstitutional" to you may be wiewed as constitutional to someone else. did the supreme court in 1919 make an unconstitutional ruling when it declared that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre when there was no fire, was not protected free speech? what is or is not protected free speech, (or any other constitutionally protected behaviour), is, and always will be, like it or not, a moving target. i, like you, like it at times, and dislike it at other times. the only way to effect civil progress is to civilly engage...

ymmv,

doug s.

[lcaillo]

Richard,

You know that on most issues we agree and that I end up on what is usually perceived as the conservative side of most. I don't suggest that we should engage liberals on the minutia of policy that is clearly on their end of the political spectrum. You are correct that doing so concedes a great deal of ground. My point is that there is somewhere on that spectrum that we can likely agree, and that is always a starting point for discourse. We can debate the value of policies and their relation to the constitution without conceding the issue. With your example, would it not be more productive to expose this University's policies to more people and discuss the obvious contradictions with the Constitution. There are some very important issues there, such as where limits on speech can be placed, and whether it is anyone's business what any private entity does with regard to free speech within its own domain.

You will never win the war if you do not engage the other side. I believe that we need people like you to stay engaged with people like doug s. and demonstrate the superiority of most conservative positions. We are in a society with constant bombardment of propoganda from all directions. I believe that there is nothing more consistent with the intent of the founding fathers of this country than to engage in reasoned political discourse. This is more important than any one issue, IMO.

Yes, I have taken on the task of guiding this thread and its discussions. None of the other moderators are as interested in the matter, and as a forum, we could easily say, as many have, that we don't want to bother with the likely problems that political discussions bring. This thread would likely have been closed and deleted long ago if it had continued on the path of some of the early posts. It could still happen.

[doug s.]

lcaillo wrote:

doug s.,

You demonstrate your own intransigence and need to understand clearly, that it is not MY way or the highway, it is the forum rules or the highway. It is the opinion of the forum owners that some or your posts are rants, as well as mine, so you might as well let that one go. Ranting about one's feelings and opinions is not a violation of forum rules, but will often have offending content. Your repeated testing of the limits is tiring. It is clear that you either don't get it or you wish to be banned. Your continued lack of capitalization is the most blatant and recent example. I will defend your right to express your views to the death, but you will do so within the rules of the forum. I suggest you focus on the issues rather than who is posting what.

Others have a right to agree or disagree. If they cannot be convinced of the value of engaging their opponents on the merits of the relative positions, then they can stay in their corners.

leonard, i think perhaps you misunderstand what i was saying. i was not referring to you when i said "my way or the highway". i was referring to the fact that you implied that this "my way or the highway" philosophy was equally applicable to me as to richard. this is what i was disagreeing with. i am open to civil debate about serious issues.

regarding my being banned, if it happens because of my wiews, or that i am not discussing issues, oh well - i disagree, but it's not my sandbox. i think that if my wiews have offended, it's because some wiolently disagree w/my wiews, certainly not because i called dubyah the anti-christ or anything. (i still don't now how i have offended, no one seems to be willing to step up and say how. many have remarked that calling barack the anti-christ is offensive. is it offensive that i believe that dubyah & many in his administration are guilty of capital crimes, imo?)

if i am banned because i have weird grammar & punctuation, well guilty as charged. and, no i won't change that.

best to all,

doug s.

[lcaillo]

No one will ever be banned because of their views on serious political issues, nor on HT. I apologize if I did not read your intent clearly.

Personally, I find it offensive that you refer to a former President as "dubyah" and that you refer to President Obama as "barack" in lower case. You won't be banned for that either. This kind of discussion and debate will be discontinued if we can't raise the bar, however. And that goes or all of us, liberal, conservative, imbecile, or genius, it does not matter. I think I have made that point clearly enough and we can drop it. Further discussion of rules will be done by PM as we usually do with other threads.

I will be out of town camping with Cub Scouts this w/e, so I won't be able to monitor this or other threads, so mods, please let folks know that I will be catching up on Sunday with this and the Service and Support threads.

[Richard W. Haines]

Have fun guys...

[SteveCallas]

To what end? Taking Richard's lead, what if (hypothetical) I feel that the government should surrender control to the NFL? Should we take my position seriously and spend a lot of time debating it? No, of course not.

This country was founded on the ideas of limited government and personal responsibility. It grew to be the most financially viable because of capitalism and free markets. It offers unlimited potential for success if you are smart enough, willing to work hard enough, and willing to make sacrifices. When someone feels the government's role should be expanded and individual rights reduced - similar to the paths some other countries have taken and then failed miserably - it's not worth debating, as it has been attempted before, multiple times, past and present.

If we don't learn from the past, we are destined to make the same mistakes. Obama is taking the country down a path of mistakes from the past.

[lcaillo]

If enough people though that it was a good idea that they elected a President that supported it, would it not be important to try to convince them otherwise?

Refusal to engage political opponents in reasonable debate, while going on about what is wrong with their positions, seems rather pointless to me.

doug s., I am still interested in understanding your perspective. I others choose not to engage discussion, perhaps it will make for less distractions and we can actually have some serious debate. Let's go back to health care. Is it your position that we should have government completely manage health care? How do you propose we do that without creating a more severe two-tiered system than exists anywhere in the world?

[SteveCallas]

The majority elected Obama but the majority were not aware of his socialist plans. They were swayed by happy emotions from talk of change and ill feelings toward Bush.

[lcaillo]

If you believe that, Steve, then the importance of engaging in public debate on the issues in order to educate those whom you believe are unaware is even greater.

Frankly, I believer that President Obama is far more a political opportunist with liberal leanings than a hard core socialist. Policies that tend toward socialism are easy to sell to a public that is eager to be told that there is someone who will solve their problems. President Obama's populist politics happen to lead to more government. If being conservative and reducing gvernment was a strategy that he thought would get him elected, I have no doubt that he would have made those promises as well. At times he did just that, playing to the crowd for which he was performing. His recent speech in which he stated that he would not sign a heath care bill that was not revenue neutral is a great example.

Now back to health care...

If we were to have a single payer system, would we try to keep the more wealthy from accessing the care that they want and can afford to pay for themselves? What do we gain, and who is going to make the decisions about what care one gets, in what priority, and at what price? What do we do with the millions of insurance workers that will no longer be employed. What do we do with the collapse of the health insurance companies and the loss in value in their stock that will affect nearly every investment portfolio and pension system? What do we do to improve on the poor performance of the existing systems that we have like medicare and the VA? Why should anyone believe that government can pull this off without enourmous waste, political favoritism, and an increase in cost over the long term? It sounds nice to say that we should insure everyone and everyone should get every bit of care that they "deserve," but when you try to sell the idea that the government is the best solution, I simply cannot buy it.

[doug s.]

lcaillo wrote:

If enough people though that it was a good idea that they elected a President that supported it, would it not be important to try to convince them otherwise?

Refusal to engage political opponents in reasonable debate, while going on about what is wrong with their positions, seems rather pointless to me.

doug s., I am still interested in understanding your perspective. I others choose not to engage discussion, perhaps it will make for less distractions and we can actually have some serious debate. Let's go back to health care. Is it your position that we should have government completely manage health care? How do you propose we do that without creating a more severe two-tiered system than exists anywhere in the world?

leonard, it is my opinion that the usa already has the most severe two-tiered system in the world, amongst industrialized nations. we spend double per capita what anyone else spends, and 15-20% of our population has no healthcare at all. surely, we can reduce costs a bit and increase services a bit w/o severely compromising quality.

regarding those who work in the insurance industry, it is my firm belief that if a yob serves no useful purpose, then it's counter-productive to have people doing that Yob, yust so they can have a yob. it is my personal belief that, due to rise in productivity, and due to increased women in the work force, it is time to go to a 30 hour 4 day work week. 40 hour work week, since about wwll, was fine, when few women worked, and productivity was not so high... now? time to share the wealth - a country w/its top 1% having wealth equal to the bottom 95% is a bit out of kilter, imo... ceo's of american corporations have earned from 300-500 times what their average salaried workers earn, in the past 10 years. this ratio is typically about 1/10th that, in the rest of the civilized world. when is enough enough?

doug s,

[doug s.]

interesting study - seems human economics hasn't ewolved all that much...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114068638

doug s.

[doug s.]

lcaillo wrote:

If you believe that, Steve, then the importance of engaging in public debate on the issues in order to educate those whom you believe are unaware is even greater.

Frankly, I believer that President Obama is far more a political opportunist with liberal leanings than a hard core socialist. Policies that tend toward socialism are easy to sell to a public that is eager to be told that there is someone who will solve their problems. President Obama's populist politics happen to lead to more government. If being conservative and reducing gvernment was a strategy that he thought would get him elected, I have no doubt that he would have made those promises as well. At times he did just that, playing to the crowd for which he was performing. His recent speech in which he stated that he would not sign a heath care bill that was not revenue neutral is a great example.

i agree; barack is the furthest thing from a socialist.

lcaillo wrote:

Now back to health care...

If we were to have a single payer system, would we try to keep the more wealthy from accessing the care that they want and can afford to pay for themselves? What do we gain, and who is going to make the decisions about what care one gets, in what priority, and at what price? What do we do with the millions of insurance workers that will no longer be employed. What do we do with the collapse of the health insurance companies and the loss in value in their stock that will affect nearly every investment portfolio and pension system? What do we do to improve on the poor performance of the existing systems that we have like medicare and the VA? Why should anyone believe that government can pull this off without enourmous waste, political favoritism, and an increase in cost over the long term? It sounds nice to say that we should insure everyone and everyone should get every bit of care that they "deserve," but when you try to sell the idea that the government is the best solution, I simply cannot buy it.

i already discussed my opinions about propping up worthless business activities in a prior post. this includes impact to stocks, etc... it is counter-productive to have this industry as-is; better in the long run to get rid of what isn't needed.

va runs poorly, cuz there isn't enough political clout to properly fund it. (now, w/our dalliances overseas, the poor, mistreated grunts and their families paying the price are squawking, and the va will get better.) medicare, actually, is relatively effective for those broke enough to require its services. it amuse me, actually, that people complain that if priwate insurance companies have to compete w/a medicare-like public option, they will go broke; yet these same people complain about how inefficient these systems are? if these systems are so inefficent, then they wouldn't be so much more cost-effective than the priwate insurance companies!

in the "long term", the fact is - americans still pay double per capita for health care what any other industrialized nation pays - are we so stupid and/or greedy, compared to people elsewhere, that we won't be able to do as well as the rest of the world?

as far as a "two-tiered" system, the wealthy will still be able to afford whatever they want; at least everyone else will have decent care. even in the uk, w/its nat'l health service, ~15% of its citizens still purchase health insurance. i am not worried so much about the rich - they will always be able to take care of themselves.

doug s.

[lcaillo]

doug s. wrote:

leonard, it is my opinion that the usa already has the most severe two-tiered system in the world, amongst industrialized nations. we spend double per capita what anyone else spends, and 15-20% of our population has no healthcare at all. surely, we can reduce costs a bit and increase services a bit w/o severely compromising quality.

regarding those who work in the insurance industry, it is my firm belief that if a yob serves no useful purpose, then it's counter-productive to have people doing that Yob, yust so they can have a yob. it is my personal belief that, due to rise in productivity, and due to increased women in the work force, it is time to go to a 30 hour 4 day work week. 40 hour work week, since about wwll, was fine, when few women worked, and productivity was not so high... now? time to share the wealth - a country w/its top 1% having wealth equal to the bottom 95% is a bit out of kilter, imo... ceo's of american corporations have earned from 300-500 times what their average salaried workers earn, in the past 10 years. this ratio is typically about 1/10th that, in the rest of the civilized world. when is enough enough?

doug s,

So are you saying that those millions of people in the insurance business, whose lives would be completely altered if they had no jobs after a few years of transition, should simply not be considered significant because those jobs are not good for them anyway? Am I misunderstanding you?

I also take issue with the notion that 15-20% of our population have no health care. They have no insurace perhaps, but no one goes without at least emergency care in this country, and many get much more with no cost to themselves. The rest of us do pay for it, but people by and large do not go without health care here.

I also take issue with the statistics that place the US so low in terms of healt care and education compared to other countries. In this country we count everyone, try to educate everyone, and also have other factors that contribute to health issues such as the obesity that comes with abundance. We also diagnose more cases where other countries have more people that fall through the cracks than their governments and the UN would have us believe. Perhaps we do spend twice what others do on health care, perhaps not. I think that number may have some issues as well, but I have no idea where you are getting it.

Let's stick with the issue of unemployment that would arise from shutting down the insurance business. Certainly many of these people would become employed by the government system, but the majority would simply have to find other employment. Do you not consider this to be a big concern?

[lcaillo]

doug s. wrote:

interesting study - seems human economics hasn't ewolved all that much...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114068638

doug s.

I wonder if the monkey would have been willing to learn to open the can if he was just given bananas. After all, don't all monkeys just have an inherrent right to bananas?

[lcaillo]

doug s. wrote:

as far as a "two-tiered" system, the wealthy will still be able to afford whatever they want; at least everyone else will have decent care. even in the uk, w/its nat'l health service, ~15% of its citizens still purchase health insurance. i am not worried so much about the rich - they will always be able to take care of themselves.

doug s.

Of course the rich will be able to afford what they want. My concern is that the rest may have to suffer with the kind of care that has been seen in "charity" hospital systems and the VA for many decades, sort of a second class system. The best doctors, nurses, and others will stay in the private sector. There will never be enough money to "properly fund" a government run system, and the rest of us will get second rate care. The VA has had enourmous funding, but always needs more because it is inefficient and many of those who work in the system have the worst kind of civil service attitude. They have no competition, have infinite job security as long as they punch a clock, and little incentive toward excellence. There are many great doctors and staff in the system, but it bogs because of the worthless ones.

[Fincave]

Not sure should I even join this debate or not but am willing to say my piece.

Firstly, I have no idea as to how to sort out the health care situation in the US, or elsewhere for that matter. I do however believe that basic health care should be available, preferably of a good standard and at a reasonable price. Is it possible that the fear of litigation and malpractice lawsuits have the effect of increasing the cost of health care? Here is a link regarding the cost of malpractice lawsuits http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=az9qxQZNmf0o The issue seems to be complicated with some claiming it to be a red herring, others saying malpractice lawsuits are responsible for up to ten percent of the costs of medical care.

Secondly, Icallio, you questioned as to what would happen to the 'millions of people' in the insurance business. I have no answer but do query the figure of millions, the figure seems rather high to me. I found the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States and as it is Wikipedia I am not all that sure of the validity but the figure quoted near the bottom of the page is 470 000 people, still a large number of people.

Thirdly, doug.s, quoting from the link I refer to above 'In 2007, more than 45 million people in the US (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year. The percentage of the non-elderly population who are uninsured has been generally increasing since the year 2000.[3] Among the uninsured population, some 37 million were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 27 million worked at least part time. About 38% of the uninsured live in households with incomes over $50,000.[2] According to the Census Bureau, nearly 36 million of the uninsured are legal US citizens. Another 9.7 million are non-citizens, but the Census Bureau does not distinguish in its estimate between legal non-citizens and illegal immigrants.[2] It has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[71] An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions. Being without health insurance and not having access to health care are not to be confused with one another.

[doug s.]

leonard, i agree - not having health insurance doesn't necessarily mean you don't have healthcare. it yust means you either bankrupt yourself if you need care, or everyone else picks up the tab at the emergency room, typically at huge added cost, both cuz the service itself is spendier, and cuz many times, the condition is now way more serious than if simple prewentive care would have been given, if the person had insurance. re: worrying about "2nd rate" services, i think if everyone is in it together, instead of a relative few, who are already marginalized, you won't have to worry about it so much.

re: those in the industry losing their yobs, i empathize with anyone out of work, who wants to work. but on a macro level, i don't agree with people getting paid to do things that are counter-productive. which is why i was opposed to bailing out the automakers, and wall street. tho, i understand why it was done - the complete collapse of our entire economy was (and still is, imo) at risk. do i feel bad for autoworkers losing their yobs? certainly, but then on the other hand, while industry thinks it's a disaster that we are selling "only" 10-11 million cars a year here, i think it's a disaster for the planet that we are selling any more than 5 million a year. really - how many cars do we need? wouldn't it be better in the long run to make fewer cars, better cars, and to keep them running longer? what's wrong w/having a larger repair industry, instead of such a large mfr industry? and, what's wrong with having a 4 day work week, 30-32 hours, so more folks can have an opportunity for a good yob? so more folks can participate in healthy leisure activities, which in turn, will stimulate yobs?

re: your taking issue with statistics regarding the usa's rank in health and education - take issue all you want. it doesn't change things, tho. besides, so what if we rank only 18th in math, or 47th in life expectancy? after all, there's 195 nations, so that's not so bad. or is it? at least we do rank #1 in smoething: being fat! and, for everyone that complains about our excessive tax burden, we are 21st...

doug s.

[lcaillo]

There are lots of jobs that many may think are counter-productive. Should we just eliminate them all? There are many businesses that you or I might think not worthy of consideration, but they all contribute to the economy. What do you do with those people who end up out of work? How is the economy going to provide the tax revenue for your health care system if we start eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs in an already tight job market? The notion that some jobs are unproductive and those industries should be simply eliminated on the whim of some like yourself seems rather elitist and self righteous of you. Let's assume that I think that the high end electronics industry is counter-productive. It causes people to spend money on energy wasteful devices and waste time that they could be spending contributing to society in better ways, and creates myths about what people can and should hear and not hear. We could put all of that money into research to built much more efficient speakers and electronics and never have to subject the poor dumb masses to the lies and snake oil of this industry again. Should we do it if we can get it through Congress?

Sorry, I am not buying.

I believe that we need some serious reform in the insurance industry. I suggest that we focus on the specifics of what will produce more affordable heath insurance for more people and how to provide a safety net for those who don't have it and incur great costs for health care, beyond what they can afford.

[SteveCallas]

lcaillo wrote:

There are lots of jobs that many may think are counter-productive. Should we just eliminate them all? There are many businesses that you or I might think not worthy of consideration, but they all contribute to the economy. What do you do with those people who end up out of work? How is the economy going to provide the tax revenue for your health care system if we start eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs in an already tight job market? The notion that some jobs are unproductive and those industries should be simply eliminated on the whim of some like yourself seems rather elitist and self righteous of you. Let's assume that I think that the high end electronics industry is counter-productive. It causes people to spend money on energy wasteful devices and waste time that they could be spending contributing to society in better ways, and creates myths about what people can and should hear and not hear. We could put all of that money into research to built much more efficient speakers and electronics and never have to subject the poor dumb masses to the lies and snake oil of this industry again. Should we do it if we can get it through Congress?

The answer is called the free market system. If a company makes something nobody wants to buy, they will go out of business. If a company is inefficient at producing product or offering a service, then another company will come along and do it faster, better, cheaper, and teh first company will go out of business. Free markets solve all of their own problems - don't need any government involvement.

Obama and his pals say the free market caused all the problems so they had to do bailouts as the solution. In doing so, they cheated the nature of the free market system. Those companies, no matter how large, should have gone out of business - that's the proper way to have allowed the system to right itself. Instead, the system has now been mooized and the economic slowdown is dragging on for way too long.

Oh, and yes, Bush is just as guilty in regards to the first bailout that passed in his last days of office. No bailout is a good idea.