... And don't forget: To alleviate crowds at the polls, the Democrats will be voting on Wednesday instead of Tuesday this year. Be sure to remind all your friends!
Did anybody else read that as "1/3 of amphibians dining out"? I was wondering how so many of them could afford to do that, when most of us are having to cut back.
This all comes down to a matter of priorities. Republicans started the war in Iraq in order to win elections. Democrats, on the other hand, want a national healthcare system in order to give Americans dignity.
That's a really clever rant, designed of course to portray the Democrats as the Truly Good and Benevolent Party. It would really be more accurate to say the Democrats promote a national healthcare system in order to win elections.
The fact is, they are both working to implement the New World Order, to get everyone under their complete control through one method or another, and none of them care one whit about you.
There's nothing isolationist about Paul's ideas - he supports trade with all other countries, and is even *less* isolationist that Obama's policies, which involve penalizing some companies that have foreign operations and import too many goods. So I don't know where you're coming from with that. The only thing Paul wants to do is close most of the US military bases all over the world. How many bases do we really need in Germany and Japan? Do you really think we can sustain a global empire like we've been doing? There is *nothing* in Ron Paul's platform that in any way restricted trade. That's the opposite of his principals.
Reagan didn't "grow government" - it grew in spite of his objections. Our system doesn't allow the president to make all the decisions (that's a good thing). Whatever he may have done, he never imposed choking horrors like the Patriot Act, expansion of FISA, and globally recognized illegal policies like the Bush Doctrine and indefinite retention and torture of individuals based on some nebulous classification. That stuff should be anathema to a conservative.
I don't know what you're trying to say about Pearl Harbor. Republicans are bad because FDR manipulated the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? What does that have to do with anything?
Damn those evil Republicans! Starting wars to get votes and keeping us all down while they serve only the corporations and mega rich! If they would just get the hell out of the way, we could nationalize all those corporations and private vast wealth, and the government can take care of paying everyone just what they need.
Maybe once the benevolent Democrats have full control, they can just outlaw the Republican party, and get rid of that pesky Constitution that keeps getting in the way. That will fix it.
It seems like you're being sarcastic, so I'm going to assume you mean the opposite of what you wrote. Something like this: "The GP wrote a bunch of nonsense. In fact, Republicans are really good. The Democrats are trying to nationalize lots of stuff."
Are you aware that a lot of corporations in the USA just got nationalized by the Republicans? Have you heard about the "Global Financial Crisis" and George Bush nationalizing various banks and insurance companies?
If you think nationalizing corporations is bad, then you must hate the Republicans, since they just did a whole mess of nationalizing corporations.
Those guys aren't Republicans - they're neocons. The party has, unfortunately, left me. They used to defend the Constitution, and its restrictions on government. They used to try to keep government in check, out of people's lives, and focused on the crucial functions of the federal government: national defense and regulation of commerce. Instead, as you say, they are nationalizing the banks, and passing out money to anyone with a little influence or an associate in power.
It's called corruption, and it's not isolated to one party or another, it's spread around equally, like Obama wants to spread the wealth.
But the Republicans, at least in principal if not current practice, are opposed to big, invasive government and interference in people's lives and the free market. The Democratic party seems to be focused on having the government solve everyone's problems. That's certainly laudable, but unfortunately a government that can solve all your problems is also well-positioned to take everything away from you, including your freedom.
I agree with Obama's characterization of some of the problems with our economy - namely that the income disparity is growing, and that while the wealthiest American's income has increased, the working and middle classes' incomes have remained flat. But this was caused primarily by increases in illegal immigration, fraudulent H1-B Visas, and globalization of the workforce in general. But his plan for increased taxation, cap-and-trade systems to increase the cost of basic energy, and vast increases in free "community-service" based labor will serve only to exacerbate the problem. Taking money out of the economy and using 30-40% of it for bureaucratic overhead and eventual redistribution will not solve the problem, but only make more people more depending on the Government.
I'm also worried that his brand of free speech will decimate forums like this and others. Examples like the banning of coverage by stations that ask the wrong questions like the North Carolina station, and expelling reporters working for newspapers that endorsed McCain, point to an administration that will suppress dissent in any way it can.
Damn those evil Republicans! Starting wars to get votes and keeping us all down while they serve only the corporations and mega rich! If they would just get the hell out of the way, we could nationalize all those corporations and private vast wealth, and the government can take care of paying everyone just what they need.
Maybe once the benevolent Democrats have full control, they can just outlaw the Republican party, and get rid of that pesky Constitution that keeps getting in the way. That will fix it.
There's no "Joe's health care" deduction on your paycheque. You pay taxes. The government spends some of that money on Joe's health care because it considers Joe's life to be worth more than your property and well-being.
Maybe you were modded down because you posted the exact same post at least 3 times. Yea, that's *at least* redundant. Hopefully the mods will catch all of them and bury them.
60% of taxes of paid by the top 5% of earners, true.
But 90% of total wages are earned by the top 1%.
Combine those two statistics and you see that very rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes.
The inequality of the tax structure pales in comparison to the inequality of earnings in this country. In a fair economy, the tax curve and wage curve should be similar if not identical. I'm happy that at last, one presidential candidate seems to understand this.
Where are you morons getting your numbers? Do you just pull this crap out of your ass? If you want to make a cohesive argument of higher taxes on the rich, please do so. But don't make shit up to support your viewpoint.
The top 1% make just over 21% of the total wages. look it up.
The point that IS relevant, to me at least, is that already about 60% of our taxes are paid by the top 5% of wage earners. Over a third of all wage-earners pay no income tax at all. How is this remotely fair?
No, what isn't fair is that the top 5% earn 60% of the income.
That's not true. Those top 5%, paying 60% of the taxes, actually only get about 36% of the income. I've even got references.
Under Obama's plan, your family (income < $100K) benefits far more than it would with a McCain presidency. So the folks to lift you up are *right* *there*. All that's left is for you to vote for them.
They should call that site "taxcutbullshit.com", because that's what it is. It told me I would get $1800 tax break under Obama, but I went to Obama's site, dug through the details of his plan, and there is no way it's accurate. Under Obama, I get 1 $500 tax credit. That's it. The only thing I can figure is they are making some additional assumptions like I don't itemize (so I get the "default" deduction for having a mortgage), that I'm going to be doing 100 hours of community service or work for a 501(c)(3) or some combination of crap.
Everyone should read the plan. That calculator is a lie.
I've never known a libertarian or real conservative republican that didn't think corporate bailouts were good.
Where are you living? What you describe sounds more like a neocon to me. I don't know *any* libertarian or "real conservative" republicans that thought the corporate bailouts were anything but institutionalized doom. And I know a lot of them. Many that are working to get Eric Cantor booted from the House for supporting the bailout (and being a traitor), in spite of the fact that doing so would likely give his Democratic opponent the seat instead.
Right. It's just a matter of priorities. As a case in point, they can do it if the bureaucrats decide it's something important. But they are going to always act out of self interest, so these projects are pretty rare.
Well the US government was founded based on a document that states, in part:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
I'd say that's justification enough, even if it doesn't carry the force of law, it carries a moral obligation that transcends it.
I love how people tend to forget we're a nation born of revolt and war, tempered in the fires of combat, using pretty much PRIVATE WEAPONS and allied FOREIGN ARMIES against a MUCH LARGER ARMY.
Well maybe we can get the Canadians and Mexicans to help out with the next one. They both seem to hold the US Feds in rather low regard.
I agree with your analysis, but your conclusions seem seriously misguided. You are absolutely correct that the current system is woefully inefficient, and far more expensive than it needs to be. Treating colds in the emergency room is simply not how things should be done.
However, you have made a couple of serious errors. You conclude that we have chosen self-interest over altruism. That's because, quite simply, people tend to act in their own self-interest, while altruism doesn't exist in the real world. At times, some misunderstood instinct or action taken out of enlightened self-interest may appear to be altruistic, but altruism not only can't be relied upon - it has been shown to be entirely non-existent in the human animal.
Your other error is assuming that there are free-market forces at work in the US Medical industry. There are very few if any. The entire system seems to be made up of a few oligarchical groups battling for slices of the pie, often using legislative variations of one stripe or another. So there are groups lobbying for doctors, there are huge hospital conglomerates, nurses unions, and insurance companies. For the most part, they don't market themselves to the consumers - they lobby Washington for favorable legislation.
Part of the problem with trying to introduce any kind of free market pressures is, as you pointed out, the lack of transparency. When the insurance companies contract with hospitals and doctor groups, and no outcome-based statistics can be found on hospitals and doctors (much less prices), how would consumers even do any comparison shopping for health care?
I don't have any answers to these issues. Disregarding the inefficiency and cost issues, I think the availability of health care in the US is outstanding, if not the best in the world. But the costs of the system will destroy it if we don't do something to fix the overhead and unfairness of the system.
The federal government has shown that they are not competent at solutions for this kind of thing, though. A big new bureaucracy in charge of all that money frankly frightens me, because it will quickly be corrupted.
And what's the waiting time for that same surgery in the US if you have no money to pay for it?
Ok, if you are going to go there, please name 1 case of life-saving surgery that some US citizen required but they were denied because they couldn't afford it. Just 1, please.
Man, I wish more people realized the irrelevance of countries. The pointlessness of systems based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Actually, I think there's some hope.
Yes, very insightful. We are plowing full steam ahead toward a one world government. Just please don't be so disillusioned to think you will have any say in how it will be run.
This is a pretty transparent attempt to change the "Internet" into a broadcast service - like TV. It's a money grab for the big corporations. I guess they decided since Washington is bent on bailing out all the banks, it's time to ask for their own big handout at the expense of the taxpayers.
Check out the site. Their "Creativity Online" section has this description:
There are a variety of reliable and legal places to enjoy great content online. Visit our Creativity Online database to learn about the great places you can enjoy content safely online.
Well... check out the list of sites they have there: ABC.com, Hulu.com, Netflix, MTV, Sony, etc. etc. It reads like a who's who of giant global media corporations.
And guess what? All those media corporations can pay big bucks for "access" to the ISP customers. This is more of the "we should get to double-dip charges for network access", except now with the added benefit of "and block everybody else".
This is probably the biggest threat to a free and open Internet I have ever seen
Fret ye not the mods. The whole thing was very arguably offtopic and trollish. And I'd friggin' do it again, too. Mwahahahaha.
Oh, wait... you're right. There seems to be some stuff in the links about the Democratic party being partially complicit in the problem - almost like it would have happened even if they had been fully in charge.
Sorry, my bad. By all means, let's make sure that post stays buried.
Slashdot Mirror
... And don't forget: To alleviate crowds at the polls, the Democrats will be voting on Wednesday instead of Tuesday this year. Be sure to remind all your friends!
Did anybody else read that as "1/3 of amphibians dining out"? I was wondering how so many of them could afford to do that, when most of us are having to cut back.
This all comes down to a matter of priorities. Republicans started the war in Iraq in order to win elections. Democrats, on the other hand, want a national healthcare system in order to give Americans dignity.
That's a really clever rant, designed of course to portray the Democrats as the Truly Good and Benevolent Party. It would really be more accurate to say the Democrats promote a national healthcare system in order to win elections.
The fact is, they are both working to implement the New World Order, to get everyone under their complete control through one method or another, and none of them care one whit about you.
There's nothing isolationist about Paul's ideas - he supports trade with all other countries, and is even *less* isolationist that Obama's policies, which involve penalizing some companies that have foreign operations and import too many goods. So I don't know where you're coming from with that. The only thing Paul wants to do is close most of the US military bases all over the world. How many bases do we really need in Germany and Japan? Do you really think we can sustain a global empire like we've been doing? There is *nothing* in Ron Paul's platform that in any way restricted trade. That's the opposite of his principals.
Reagan didn't "grow government" - it grew in spite of his objections. Our system doesn't allow the president to make all the decisions (that's a good thing). Whatever he may have done, he never imposed choking horrors like the Patriot Act, expansion of FISA, and globally recognized illegal policies like the Bush Doctrine and indefinite retention and torture of individuals based on some nebulous classification. That stuff should be anathema to a conservative.
I don't know what you're trying to say about Pearl Harbor. Republicans are bad because FDR manipulated the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? What does that have to do with anything?
It seems like you're being sarcastic, so I'm going to assume you mean the opposite of what you wrote. Something like this: "The GP wrote a bunch of nonsense. In fact, Republicans are really good. The Democrats are trying to nationalize lots of stuff."
Are you aware that a lot of corporations in the USA just got nationalized by the Republicans? Have you heard about the "Global Financial Crisis" and George Bush nationalizing various banks and insurance companies?
If you think nationalizing corporations is bad, then you must hate the Republicans, since they just did a whole mess of nationalizing corporations.
Those guys aren't Republicans - they're neocons. The party has, unfortunately, left me. They used to defend the Constitution, and its restrictions on government. They used to try to keep government in check, out of people's lives, and focused on the crucial functions of the federal government: national defense and regulation of commerce. Instead, as you say, they are nationalizing the banks, and passing out money to anyone with a little influence or an associate in power.
It's called corruption, and it's not isolated to one party or another, it's spread around equally, like Obama wants to spread the wealth.
But the Republicans, at least in principal if not current practice, are opposed to big, invasive government and interference in people's lives and the free market. The Democratic party seems to be focused on having the government solve everyone's problems. That's certainly laudable, but unfortunately a government that can solve all your problems is also well-positioned to take everything away from you, including your freedom.
I agree with Obama's characterization of some of the problems with our economy - namely that the income disparity is growing, and that while the wealthiest American's income has increased, the working and middle classes' incomes have remained flat. But this was caused primarily by increases in illegal immigration, fraudulent H1-B Visas, and globalization of the workforce in general. But his plan for increased taxation, cap-and-trade systems to increase the cost of basic energy, and vast increases in free "community-service" based labor will serve only to exacerbate the problem. Taking money out of the economy and using 30-40% of it for bureaucratic overhead and eventual redistribution will not solve the problem, but only make more people more depending on the Government.
I'm also worried that his brand of free speech will decimate forums like this and others. Examples like the banning of coverage by stations that ask the wrong questions like the North Carolina station, and expelling reporters working for newspapers that endorsed McCain, point to an administration that will suppress dissent in any way it can.
Damn those evil Republicans! Starting wars to get votes and keeping us all down while they serve only the corporations and mega rich! If they would just get the hell out of the way, we could nationalize all those corporations and private vast wealth, and the government can take care of paying everyone just what they need.
Maybe once the benevolent Democrats have full control, they can just outlaw the Republican party, and get rid of that pesky Constitution that keeps getting in the way. That will fix it.
There's no "Joe's health care" deduction on your paycheque. You pay taxes. The government spends some of that money on Joe's health care because it considers Joe's life to be worth more than your property and well-being.
There, fixed it for ya.
Here in canada we have functioning public health care :D
Is that anything like a "functioning alcoholic"?
Maybe you were modded down because you posted the exact same post at least 3 times. Yea, that's *at least* redundant. Hopefully the mods will catch all of them and bury them.
60% of taxes of paid by the top 5% of earners, true.
But 90% of total wages are earned by the top 1%.
Combine those two statistics and you see that very rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes.
The inequality of the tax structure pales in comparison to the inequality of earnings in this country. In a fair economy, the tax curve and wage curve should be similar if not identical. I'm happy that at last, one presidential candidate seems to understand this.
Where are you morons getting your numbers? Do you just pull this crap out of your ass? If you want to make a cohesive argument of higher taxes on the rich, please do so. But don't make shit up to support your viewpoint.
The top 1% make just over 21% of the total wages. look it up.
The point that IS relevant, to me at least, is that already about 60% of our taxes are paid by the top 5% of wage earners. Over a third of all wage-earners pay no income tax at all. How is this remotely fair? No, what isn't fair is that the top 5% earn 60% of the income.
That's not true. Those top 5%, paying 60% of the taxes, actually only get about 36% of the income. I've even got references.
...my wife and I together don't even have a 6 figure income...
Where are the people to lift US up??
http://taxcutfacts.com/
Under Obama's plan, your family (income < $100K) benefits far more than it would with a McCain presidency. So the folks to lift you up are *right* *there*. All that's left is for you to vote for them.
They should call that site "taxcutbullshit.com", because that's what it is. It told me I would get $1800 tax break under Obama, but I went to Obama's site, dug through the details of his plan, and there is no way it's accurate. Under Obama, I get 1 $500 tax credit. That's it. The only thing I can figure is they are making some additional assumptions like I don't itemize (so I get the "default" deduction for having a mortgage), that I'm going to be doing 100 hours of community service or work for a 501(c)(3) or some combination of crap.
Everyone should read the plan. That calculator is a lie.
95% of taxpayers. Not "people."
Nope. "Working families" is the phrase. And it includes that 40% who currently have 0 tax liability.
I've never known a libertarian or real conservative republican that didn't think corporate bailouts were good.
Where are you living? What you describe sounds more like a neocon to me. I don't know *any* libertarian or "real conservative" republicans that thought the corporate bailouts were anything but institutionalized doom. And I know a lot of them. Many that are working to get Eric Cantor booted from the House for supporting the bailout (and being a traitor), in spite of the fact that doing so would likely give his Democratic opponent the seat instead.
Here are a few examples:
Maybe you think the reporters on Fox news are "real conservatives"?
Right. It's just a matter of priorities. As a case in point, they can do it if the bureaucrats decide it's something important. But they are going to always act out of self interest, so these projects are pretty rare.
I'd say that's justification enough, even if it doesn't carry the force of law, it carries a moral obligation that transcends it.
I love how people tend to forget we're a nation born of revolt and war, tempered in the fires of combat, using pretty much PRIVATE WEAPONS and allied FOREIGN ARMIES against a MUCH LARGER ARMY.
Well maybe we can get the Canadians and Mexicans to help out with the next one. They both seem to hold the US Feds in rather low regard.
forking the government model will probably not help what model the government adopts.
In soviet russia, they government forks you!
I agree with your analysis, but your conclusions seem seriously misguided. You are absolutely correct that the current system is woefully inefficient, and far more expensive than it needs to be. Treating colds in the emergency room is simply not how things should be done.
However, you have made a couple of serious errors. You conclude that we have chosen self-interest over altruism. That's because, quite simply, people tend to act in their own self-interest, while altruism doesn't exist in the real world. At times, some misunderstood instinct or action taken out of enlightened self-interest may appear to be altruistic, but altruism not only can't be relied upon - it has been shown to be entirely non-existent in the human animal.
Your other error is assuming that there are free-market forces at work in the US Medical industry. There are very few if any. The entire system seems to be made up of a few oligarchical groups battling for slices of the pie, often using legislative variations of one stripe or another. So there are groups lobbying for doctors, there are huge hospital conglomerates, nurses unions, and insurance companies. For the most part, they don't market themselves to the consumers - they lobby Washington for favorable legislation.
Part of the problem with trying to introduce any kind of free market pressures is, as you pointed out, the lack of transparency. When the insurance companies contract with hospitals and doctor groups, and no outcome-based statistics can be found on hospitals and doctors (much less prices), how would consumers even do any comparison shopping for health care?
I don't have any answers to these issues. Disregarding the inefficiency and cost issues, I think the availability of health care in the US is outstanding, if not the best in the world. But the costs of the system will destroy it if we don't do something to fix the overhead and unfairness of the system.
The federal government has shown that they are not competent at solutions for this kind of thing, though. A big new bureaucracy in charge of all that money frankly frightens me, because it will quickly be corrupted.
And what's the waiting time for that same surgery in the US if you have no money to pay for it?
Ok, if you are going to go there, please name 1 case of life-saving surgery that some US citizen required but they were denied because they couldn't afford it. Just 1, please.
Honestly, I think we'll be ok with either Obama or McCain.
Honestly, I think we'll be doomed with either Obama or McCain
There, fixed it for ya.
Man, I wish more people realized the irrelevance of countries. The pointlessness of systems based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Actually, I think there's some hope.
Yes, very insightful. We are plowing full steam ahead toward a one world government. Just please don't be so disillusioned to think you will have any say in how it will be run.
You said something bad about Obama.
Flamebait mod for you!!
This is a pretty transparent attempt to change the "Internet" into a broadcast service - like TV. It's a money grab for the big corporations. I guess they decided since Washington is bent on bailing out all the banks, it's time to ask for their own big handout at the expense of the taxpayers.
Check out the site. Their "Creativity Online" section has this description:
Well... check out the list of sites they have there: ABC.com, Hulu.com, Netflix, MTV, Sony, etc. etc. It reads like a who's who of giant global media corporations.
And guess what? All those media corporations can pay big bucks for "access" to the ISP customers. This is more of the "we should get to double-dip charges for network access", except now with the added benefit of "and block everybody else".
This is probably the biggest threat to a free and open Internet I have ever seen
Fret ye not the mods. The whole thing was very arguably offtopic and trollish. And I'd friggin' do it again, too. Mwahahahaha.
Oh, wait... you're right. There seems to be some stuff in the links about the Democratic party being partially complicit in the problem - almost like it would have happened even if they had been fully in charge.
Sorry, my bad. By all means, let's make sure that post stays buried.