THE GEOERGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY

[texaspackerbacker]

The "80s" thread got me thinking about this. A lot of people have come to believe things are so bad these days, and to blame George W. Bush for the "problems" they think exist. You hear all the time talk from leftist politicians and media about Bush's "failed presidency"--of course, with no specifics given.

I, of course, don't believe the propaganda, and will in a later thread, detail why.

The poll question is whether or not ya'all buy into those anti-Bush ideas? Or your own observations, feelings, and senses tell you otherwise.

[bobblehead]

we have big problems, but not the ones the media report. The economy is stable, unemployment is reasonable, the dollar is weak, but can recover if handled appropriately.

the big problems are the unfunded liabilities we hide by not reporting them and no politician other than Paul or Tancredo will dare talk about them.

[sheepshead]

whats #3 say? If democracy holds in Iraq, he'll be looked upon as one of the greatest presidents in history. This will be an historical perspective that many of us will not be around to see however.

[The Leaper]

Bush has been a relatively poor president.

He initially did a great job with 9/11...but then flubbed things up by not using that as capital to SECURE OUR BORDERS.

His choices for advisors and leaders have been horrific. Far too many people have had to resign due to either scandal or incompetance.

Overall, our economy struggles because neither side is truly willing to protect the interests of the American people. Free trade should be limited to those nations and companies that earn the right to utilize it...it should not just be given carte blanche to everyone.

I'll be glad to see Bush go...but at the same time, I will feel that way for 95% of presidents after 8 years. I am a strong supporter of term limits, because it promotes new ideas and new agendas getting a fair shake. This is precisely why Congress has become a disaster...LACK OF TERM LIMITS.

I can't vote in this poll, because I don't fit in any of the categories...although I have no idea what the hell #3 is trying to say.

[Scott Campbell]

The economy is stable............



People who think this economy is stable are in for a rude awakening when they're finally able to put a price tag on the bailouts from the housing bubble.

[GoPackGo]

The economy is stable............



People who think this economy is stable are in for a rude awakening when they're finally able to put a price tag on the bailouts from the housing bubble.

When you say bailouts do you mean foreclosures or free money from the Government to people who's homes lost value?

[texaspackerbacker]

Most forecasts are for the housing downturn to level off and turn back upward in the second half of '08. The economy in general is expected to grow at a better rate the last half of this year too. My source on this is a guy named Paul Bishop, the head of the National Association of Realtors.

Spending for a possible bailout has little to do with the stability of the economy. Growth in conjunction with reasonable inflation is the key to a good situation. Despite media attempts tp promote panic, the macro-economic situation is not that bad, and the micro-economic situation for practically all individuals also is fine--even though many inexplicably believe that others are not as well off as themselves.

Regarding foreclosures, interest is still in the 6% range. There was a FAR BIGGER rate of foreclosures several times in the last few decades when interest was as high as the mid-teens.

[oregonpackfan]

George W. Bush, IMO, has been a terrible President. His presidency has been marred by:

1. Starting a war in Iraq based on false accusations of Iraq'sWMD's, Hussain's involvemtent in 9/11 and al-Qaida. This has led to the loss of over 4,000 American service people, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $500 billion in costs where the bill is still running...

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

3. As Leaper noted, W. assigned many unqualified people to positions of authority. Michael Brown was appointed head of FEMA. He has previously directed a horse breeding farm. Though Harriet Miers graduated from law school, she never appeared in a court room as a lawyer or a judge. W. tried to appoint her to the U. S. Supreme Court.

4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had

[bobblehead]

The economy is stable............



People who think this economy is stable are in for a rude awakening when they're finally able to put a price tag on the bailouts from the housing bubble.

Please, why do we need a bailout?? Yes I agree if we pour billions into some mythical bailout it will hurt the economy, but not much. Anyway, someone who put 0 down, paid interest only ect who loses his house has lost nothing. The lenders were the ones who lost money here and its their own fault. I won't get into the whole derivatives market and what caused the housing bubble, its pointless and has NOTHING to do with politicians. Yep, you heard me right, I'm actually not blaming politicians for something here. Now if they continue to leave it alone, its a problem that will fix itself.

On a sidenote, even if we do bail it out, its a drop in the bucket compared to other gov't spending, while I admit the capital markets coming to a halt has put a damper on the economy, it IS in stable condition in the now, no matter how often Obama, the media or anyone else tells you its not. Look at EVERY indicator and it will show you that things are doing fine, not thriving like 03-07, but still fine.

[bobblehead]

George W. Bush, IMO, has been a terrible President. His presidency has been marred by:

1. Starting a war in Iraq based on false accusations of Iraq'sWMD's, Hussain's involvemtent in 9/11 and al-Qaida. This has led to the loss of over 4,000 American service people, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $500 billion in costs where the bill is still running...

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

3. As Leaper noted, W. assigned many unqualified people to positions of authority. Michael Brown was appointed head of FEMA. He has previously directed a horse breeding farm. Though Harriet Miers graduated from law school, she never appeared in a court room as a lawyer or a judge. W. tried to appoint her to the U. S. Supreme Court.

4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had
1) I think I covered at nauseum why we had to start a war in Iraq, and no one lifted a finger to make the situation otherwise.

2) I 'm all for clean air, nuclear has ZERO greenhouse gas emissions....lets start building. But if you think there is any possible way to stop using oil without crippling the entire way of life we enjoy....please, fill me in, and don't get me started on the validity of man made global warming.

3) Agree fully, too much nepitism in this administration, although many that were criticized as good old boys were still very qualified. Every president does this and gets embarassed some, but I agree, its still wrong.

4) During bushs term "poor" people increased their earnings and wealth by a much greater percentage than "the rich" (don't have numbers at my disposal right now) If your point is that a guy making 1 million got a 1% raise and a guy making 20k got a 10% raise the the millionaire got 400% more of a raise than the poor guy, congratulations you passed number fudging 101. Now if you can show me ANY system that works better than capitilism as a way to raise the standard of living of EVERYONE I'm all for learning, but it will take an entire new thread to show you the full folly of the points you make here.

While I'm at it I guess pointing out that every person in america who paid taxes under clinton got a tax cut from bush and that as a percentage of taxes paid the poor got much bigger tax cuts. Again, if the rich pay all the taxes when you make sensible tax cuts....well, they might actually get more of the benefit.

5) If you wanna look at the source of the healthcare issue, again this is an entire new thread, but look at the Kennedy HMO bill back in the day. It stifled competition, put in new regulations was touted as "a breakthrough so every american can afford healthcare" and basically ran the costs of care thru the roof and allowed a few corporations to dominate the playing field without actually competing for business....interestingly the very thing libs complain about. EVERY time gov't tinkers with the free market model the results are disastorous. I do agree though that bush did little to help this problem like deregulating the industry and allowing companies to cross state lines, allowing start ups to offer individual disastor insurance to compete with the big boys without a crushing amount of red tape in the way.
sidenote: Most people can afford healthcare and choose not to, here in nevada a disastor policy with a 5k decuctible for a middle aged person is under $100 a month. This protects against bankruptcy and puts a person in charge of his own healthcare if coupled with a healthcare savings account (another tax cut for middle america that bush put through)

6) there is no law anywhere that says if you fire at our troops you get a fair trial. there is no law that says if you aren't wearing a uniform you get the geneva treatment. As far as gitmo goes, after the libs threw such a fit we solved the problem....when they tried to surrender on the battlefield we shot them since we had nowhere to put them (you won't here that in the news will you). I agree with you on torture, we don't need it, with al qaida there is no jack bauer situation going on. But to call people who took arms against our troops "political prisoners" thats laughable. Just like in any war when we leave iraq and the war is over the PRISONERS OF WAR will be released to their countries of origin, what would you do, release them back to the battlefield?? Should we re-arm them while we are at it?

7) While bush won't be considered a great president, the title of worst ever still goes to LBJ who decided the social security trust fund was there for him to spend and started the idea of unfunded liabilities in our govenment....you know, spend now pay when I'm dead. This opened us up for programs like medicare and medicaid that we can't really afford, ooo....oooo....and national healthcare.

[texaspackerbacker]

George W. Bush, IMO, has been a terrible President. His presidency has been marred by:

1. Starting a war in Iraq based on false accusations of Iraq'sWMD's, Hussain's involvemtent in 9/11 and al-Qaida. This has led to the loss of over 4,000 American service people, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $500 billion in costs where the bill is still running...

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

3. As Leaper noted, W. assigned many unqualified people to positions of authority. Michael Brown was appointed head of FEMA. He has previously directed a horse breeding farm. Though Harriet Miers graduated from law school, she never appeared in a court room as a lawyer or a judge. W. tried to appoint her to the U. S. Supreme Court.

4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had

Kudos for having the courage to discuss some issues, Oregon.

1. Nobody EVER accused Saddam of being involved in 9/11. He indeed DID have links to al Qaeda, though. Remember Zarqawi? It is well documented that he was in Iraq with Saddam's blessing long before we invaded. And then there is the Ansar al Islam al Qaeda terrorist training camp within Iraq which our troops overran. Arguably, the cost would have been a helluva lot more than 4,000 deaths and $500 billion if al Qaeda had successfully perpetrated repeats of 9/11, which the war in Iraq and al Qaeda's prioritizing of screwing up Iraq over hitting us at home was in large part responsible for preventing. THAT is the jewel in Bush's legacy--preventing repeats of 9/11 or worse.

2. Manmade global warming is a fiction which is being used to HARM the economies of America and other western capitalist countries. The Kyoto Accords, in addition to being stupidly unnecessary in general, were grossly one-sided against us, and should NOT have been signed.

3. I'll give you that one. So did every other president that ever came along. Bush also appointed far more highly qualified and competent people than the few bad examples. His judicial appointments in particular, have been spectacular--other than Miers--strict constructionist people rather than the rotten judicial activists for all the wrong things that some presidents have appointed in the past.

4. What those stats don't reflect is that virtually everyone is comfortable, prosperous, and free to enjoy their comfort and prosperity. Does it really HARM any of us to have Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. be filthy rich? Or is that just irrational class envy?

5. Many of those 47 million including myself are uninsured by CHOICE. Nobody in this country goes without vital health care, even if they are uninsured and can't afford it. And our health care system is far and away the most advanced in the world in terms of research for new cures, etc. I agree, formalizing what is now accomplished informally--health care for everybody--should be done. However, it should be done without screwing up the wonderful system we now have--as the proposed Dem/lib programs undoubtedly would. BTW, Bush did propose programs, but a hostile Congress shot them down.

6. First of all, it would be interesting to hear how you define "torture", as nothing we have done comes close to classical or traditional definitions of torture. As for what we have done, hell yeah, terrorists have been harshly interrogated and locked up without due process in Guantanamo. And it damn well better continue, as that has verifiably prevented terrorist acts against Americans. Due process of law is a right reserved for us--citizens and possibly legal immigrants of this country. No way these Guantanamo terrorists should ever be afforded those rights.

Yes, history probably will treat Bush with the same irrationality and unfairness as the present. The historians, as part of the leftist educational establishment, after all, are the ones who determine such things, and as soon as all of the good sense Americans who know otherwise die off, that's the way it probably will go down. The scumbags will probably even revise history to make idiot Jimmy Carter out to be something other than the loser he was.

[HarveyWallbangers]

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

This is a good thing. The Kyoto Protocol was seriously flawed. It looks even worse now. Even some lefties are willing to admit it. Some that were even authors of the agreement.

http://www.aussmc.org/Time_to_ditch_kyoto.php


4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

Liberals always love class wars. It's easy to say tax the rich. They said the same things about Reagan. Over-taxing the rich doesn't do much for the economy, but it sure sounds good.


5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

Something that dozens of other Presidents (including Bill Clinton) have failed to accomplish. It's the elephant in the room. You have two extremes on the issue. One side that wants a socialistic system that covers everybody but will inevitably lead to poorer care and will be a financial burden on everybody. The other side wants a market system that will drive down costs and provide better care for most people, but will inevitably lead to some people being left out. I think both sides can agree that something needs to be done, but there's a big difference on what changes to implement. Some people have a utopian idea that a socialistic system would be available to all, cheap, and would provide wonderful care for all--which is laughable.


6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Yeah, I have concerns about the government overstepping its bounds when dealing with U.S. citizens. I don't much care what they do to enemy combatants. I'd rather they do what they can to keep terrorists from flying 747s into 100 story buildings. It's a dirty little secret, but no government has really cared much about the rights of enemy combatants. I'm not saying you torture every prisoner you get, but if there is a prisoner that you think can provide vital information, you interrogate them. And not in a nice way. It's always been that way. It will always be that way. You just won't hear about it.


Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had

I'm shocked you could come to this conclusion. Like all things, history will more accurately judge Bush in about 50 years. Time will be an outstanding judge.

[HarveyWallbangers]

5. Many of those 47 million including myself are uninsured by CHOICE. Nobody in this country goes without vital health care, even if they are uninsured and can't afford it. And our health care system is far and away the most advanced in the world in terms of research for new cures, etc. I agree, formalizing what is now accomplished informally--health care for everybody--should be done. However, it should be done without screwing up the wonderful system we now have--as the proposed Dem/lib programs undoubtedly would. BTW, Bush did propose programs, but a hostile Congress shot them down.

Not only that but 47M is a bullshit figure. That includes, among other things, people that were between jobs for a week or two and may have not been covered for a brief period of time. It's called Fuzzy Math. It's also dishonest.

[oregonpackfan]

5. Many of those 47 million including myself are uninsured by CHOICE. Nobody in this country goes without vital health care, even if they are uninsured and can't afford it. And our health care system is far and away the most advanced in the world in terms of research for new cures, etc. I agree, formalizing what is now accomplished informally--health care for everybody--should be done. However, it should be done without screwing up the wonderful system we now have--as the proposed Dem/lib programs undoubtedly would. BTW, Bush did propose programs, but a hostile Congress shot them down.

Not only that but 47M is a bullshit figure. That includes people that were between jobs for a week or two and may have not been covered for a brief period of time. It's dishonest.

Harvey,

The 47 million figure is from the United States Census Bureau.

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said. “Since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children has been dropping steadily, from a high of 15.4 percent to 10.8 percent in 2004. The new Census data show that the uninsured rate among children moved in the wrong direction in 2005, rising to 11.2 percent.”

Greenstein warned that matters could get worse. In fiscal year 2007, which begins October 1, children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children. Congress has known about the shortfall since early February, when the Administration took note of it and proposed a measure to address it, but Congress has so far failed to act.

“Unless Congress takes action this year to avert the impending shortfall,” Greenstein said, “the increase in the number of children without health coverage is likely to accelerate in the year ahead.”



Key Findings from the New Census Data

* The number of people without health insurance was 46.6 million in 2005, compared to 45.3 million in 2004, and 41.2 million in 2001 (see table below).

* The percentage of Americans without insurance rose to 15.9 percent in 2005, higher than the 15.6 percent level in 2004 and much higher than the 14.9 percent level in 2001.

* The percentage of Americans who are uninsured rose largely because the percentage of people with employer-sponsored coverage continued to decline, as it has in the past several years.

* The percentage of children under 18 who are uninsured rose from 10.8 percent in 2004 to 11.2 percent in 2005, while the number of uninsured children climbed from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005, an increase of 360,000.

* Lack of insurance is much more common among people with low incomes. Some 24.4 percent of people with incomes below $25,000 were uninsured in 2005, almost triple the rate of 8.5 percent among people with incomes over $75,000.

* African-Americans (19.6 percent uninsured) and Hispanics (32.7 percent) were much more likely to be uninsured than white, non-Hispanic people (11.3 percent).

[HarveyWallbangers]

Analysis: Politicians Using Flawed Data on Uninsured Population
By The Heartland Institute

Prior to the November election, presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) wrote in an October essay for Health Insurance Underwriter magazine, "Roughly 45 million American have no health insurance at all."

Ever since the U.S. Census Bureau released its August 26, 2004 report on the nation's uninsured population, politicians have used the data to make health insurance policy decisions, and single-payer activists have used the data to lobby for government-mandated or -administered national health insurance. By the Bureau's own admission, however, the data are incorrect: The number of uninsured is greatly overstated.

After a closer look at the data released in August and a consideration of analyses performed since then, a more accurate picture of the uninsured problem emerges. The good news is that the number of Americans without health insurance policies is not indicative of a crisis requiring more taxpayer-funded government regulations and mandates. The bad news is that policymakers are relying on extremely flawed data.

A Million More Insured

According to the Census Bureau's methodology and published numbers, there were 44.9 million Americans without health insurance for at least a part of 2003, an increase of approximately 3 million over the previous year's figure. At the same time, however, the total number of people with insurance increased by one million, to 243.3 million.

Devon Herrick, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), noted, "While it is true that the number of uninsured has grown, it is equally true that the number of people with insurance has grown steadily for the last 15 years. Despite recent economic hard times, there has never been this many people with health insurance."

Although there were three million more people uninsured in 2003 than in 1996, the percentage of the U.S. population that is uninsured remained the same, at 15.6 percent.

Possible 15 Million Over-count

On numerous occasions, Census Bureau officials have acknowledged the uninsured number is inflated because the Bureau reports as "uninsured" those adults and children who are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) but are not enrolled.

As Herrick observed, "Being uninsured in America is often a matter of choice. Most uninsured people either can afford health insurance or qualify for government-sponsored health care programs; they just choose not to enroll."

While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported Medicaid enrollment at 51 million in 2002, the Census tabulated only 33 million, a difference of 18 million people. This same kind of undercount happened again in 2003: The CMS reported 2 million people became eligible for Medicaid, but the Census Bureau recorded only a 350,000 increase in Medicaid enrollment.

This is no minor statistical snag, as the Census Bureau reports there are more than 15 million "uninsured" individuals in households with less than $25,000 of income. Many of these individuals meet the income test for Medicaid or SCHIP eligibility, but they are not technically enrolled and are therefore considered by the Census Bureau to be uninsured.

However, as soon as a person who is eligible for Medicaid, but not enrolled, enters the health care system through a hospital or clinic, he or she is automatically enrolled into the Medicaid plan. Therefore, counting this population as "uninsured" distorts the data significantly, since these individuals can enroll at any time and have their medical expenses paid whenever they require health care.

The social policy implications of this over-count are important because the inflated numbers send the wrong message to politicians. One of Kerry's health care proposals singled out the Medicaid population for special legislation. His campaign literature stated there are "millions of uninsured children who are eligible for health care coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP but are not enrolled."

Given that no one who is eligible for Medicaid can be correctly described as uninsured, spending millions of dollars to enroll these people would do no one any good at all. These folks are not uninsured.

Many Unaware They're Insured

In addition, many people may not be aware that they or their children are covered by a health insurance program, either private or government, if they have not used covered services recently. Thus, they fail to properly report their insurance coverage.

Research I conducted in 1999 while at the Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Missouri-Columbia discovered many Medicaid recipients say they don't have insurance coverage, but when interviewed by a trained researcher and asked if the government paid for their medical care, they respond in the affirmative. When asked if they remember the name of the program, they cite Medicaid and sometimes Medicare. Many interviewees said they don't consider government-run health care to be insurance because they do not pay premiums and often have no co-pays or deductibles.

Also inflating the uninsured figure is a sizeable increase in the nation's immigrant population. Roughly 9 million documented and undocumented aliens are generally included in the Census estimates. Many immigrants hesitate to participate in a government program of any kind, for fear of establishing a paper trail for immigration and national security authorities. Cultural mores, folkways, and language barriers also conspire to keep these people uninsured.

Middle-Income Uninsured

Interestingly, the Census data for 2003 show almost 15 million uninsured people in households with annual incomes above $50,000, with 7.6 million of them in households with incomes of more than $75,000. That is certainly adequate income to afford health insurance in most states.

Another 18 million of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34, and many people in that age group voluntarily take a pass on buying health insurance. According to Greg Scandlen, director of the Center for Consumer Driven Health Care at the Galen Institute, "This attitude is actually encouraged by 'guaranteed issue' laws in many states, which assure individuals that they can buy health insurance after they become ill or injured."

Dueling Surveys

Data from three federally sponsored national surveys--the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)--also seek to make an accurate count of the nation's uninsured population.

All three surveys conclude that at any given time during a year, being uninsured is a much smaller problem than we are led to believe by the Census data alone. For example, only about 30 percent of the non-elderly population who become uninsured in a given year remain uninsured for more than 12 months. Nearly 50 percent regain health insurance within four months.

Writing in response to the new Census data, Dr. Kirk A. Johnson, senior policy analyst for the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, highlighted the problem of taking the statistics at face value. The Bureau's numbers may make for eye-popping headlines, he noted, but, "When it comes to health insurance, the Census Bureau's own statisticians argue that SIPP [Survey of Income and Program Participation] provides a better measure of health insurance coverage than CPS [Current Population Survey].

In a recent research report on the differences between CPS and SIPP in this regard, Census Bureau statistician Shailesh Bhandari wrote, 'Since the SIPP collects monthly information and allows us to see changes from month to month, SIPP may be closer to the truth.'"

"In short," wrote Johnson, "the CPS data provide an incomplete picture on poverty and health insurance in America. Policymakers would be well advised to look to other data, such as SIPP, to gauge what actually happens to people who fall into poverty or lose their health insurance. Only then will public policy be fully informed, and America can truly have an intelligent debate on how to better address these problems."

The Census Bureau's own admission that the CPS "is not designed primarily to collect health insurance data" speaks directly to the issue that the methodology used to collect this important information is not up to the task.

New Thinking Needed

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, suggests that since the uninsured rate has been static for the past 11 years, policy analysts and policymakers need to get their thinking "out of the box."

"We would be gloomy were it not for last year's public policy changes that can begin to shift the balance back to private health coverage," said Turner. "Health Savings Accounts will help. Broader ownership of health insurance is the ultimate solution."

The percentage of Americans without health insurance has been almost level for more than a decade. In 1993, the year of the great health care crisis, it was 15.3 percent. Last year, a nearly identical 15.6 percent of Americans were uninsured.

"At what point do we start to rethink the problem?" Turner asked. "The number of uninsured is slowly going to get worse without policy changes. " Adding 45 million people to government program rolls just isn't an option," she noted.

"Refundable tax credits for the uninsured, deductibility of individually purchased health insurance, and new purchasing options are crucial to begin to give more people more options to buy affordable health insurance--insurance they can take with them even if they lose their jobs."

Derek Hunter, a research assistant for the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, summed up the situation in his August 26 report, Counting the Uninsured: Why Congress Should Look Beyond the Census Figures.

"At the very least, the undercounting of Medicaid recipients and the undercounting of insurance coverage, as admitted and described by Census officials, demonstrate that the Census Bureau's figures on the uninsured do not accurately reflect reality and may lead policymakers and the public to incorrect impressions about the uninsured."

"The issue of uninsurance is simply too important for its public face to come from an indifferent and inaccurate survey," wrote Hunter.

[cpk1994]

Kudos for having the courage to discuss some issues, Oregon.

1. Nobody EVER accused Saddam of being involved in 9/11. He indeed DID have links to al Qaeda, though. Remember Zarqawi? It is well documented that he was in Iraq with Saddam's blessing long before we invaded. And then there is the Ansar al Islam al Qaeda terrorist training camp within Iraq which our troops overran. Arguably, the cost would have been a helluva lot more than 4,000 deaths and $500 billion if al Qaeda had successfully perpetrated repeats of 9/11, which the war in Iraq and al Qaeda's prioritizing of screwing up Iraq over hitting us at home was in large part responsible for preventing. THAT is the jewel in Bush's legacy--preventing repeats of 9/11 or worse.

2. Manmade global warming is a fiction which is being used to HARM the economies of America and other western capitalist countries. The Kyoto Accords, in addition to being stupidly unnecessary in general, were grossly one-sided against us, and should NOT have been signed.

3. I'll give you that one. So did every other president that ever came along. Bush also appointed far more highly qualified and competent people than the few bad examples. His judicial appointments in particular, have been spectacular--other than Miers--strict constructionist people rather than the rotten judicial activists for all the wrong things that some presidents have appointed in the past.

4. What those stats don't reflect is that virtually everyone is comfortable, prosperous, and free to enjoy their comfort and prosperity. Does it really HARM any of us to have Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. be filthy rich? Or is that just irrational class envy?

5. Many of those 47 million including myself are uninsured by CHOICE. Nobody in this country goes without vital health care, even if they are uninsured and can't afford it. And our health care system is far and away the most advanced in the world in terms of research for new cures, etc. I agree, formalizing what is now accomplished informally--health care for everybody--should be done. However, it should be done without screwing up the wonderful system we now have--as the proposed Dem/lib programs undoubtedly would. BTW, Bush did propose programs, but a hostile Congress shot them down.

6. First of all, it would be interesting to hear how you define "torture", as nothing we have done comes close to classical or traditional definitions of torture. As for what we have done, hell yeah, terrorists have been harshly interrogated and locked up without due process in Guantanamo. And it damn well better continue, as that has verifiably prevented terrorist acts against Americans. Due process of law is a right reserved for us--citizens and possibly legal immigrants of this country. No way these Guantanamo terrorists should ever be afforded those rights.

Yes, history probably will treat Bush with the same irrationality and unfairness as the present. The historians, as part of the leftist educational establishment, after all, are the ones who determine such things, and as soon as all of the good sense Americans who know otherwise die off, that's the way it probably will go down. The scumbags will probably even revise history to make idiot Jimmy Carter out to be something other than the loser he was.

1.Bush did the right thing, but made the wrong case. He had a much stronger case with the Persian Gulf War Treaty, which Saddam signed, and then violated 17 times(17 UN resolutions Saddam was in breach of).

2. Agree here.

3. Its always going to be the same for all Presidents. Bush's biggest mistakes were dipping into his Fatrher's and Reagan's pool of cronies. That never wroks well.

4. I agree. "Tax cuts for the riuch" has been thrown around by the Dems with the premise of, "If you say it enough times, people will accept it as truth."

5. To add to your reponse, Anyone laying this problem at Bush's feet for failing, see Clinton, Hillary "National Universal Health Care" during the Clinton Administration. It goes both ways.

6. To add, historical definitions of toture don't apply becuase we are not fgighting a war against a state body. The US is not tied to the Geneva Conventions for that reasonand becuase these people are not in uniform and are not fighting for a particular country.

History will look back on Bush favorably becuase of 2 big points:

1. The Tailban government as a state sponsor of terror was deposed

2. Saddam Hussien was removed from power and later executed freeing millions of Irquis from a oppressive dictatorship.

[bobblehead]

ya know oregon I was reading your post and ready to type a long response about trusting any arguement that switches from hard numbers to percentages midcourse without explaining, then harvey did the heavy lifting for me.

I guess I will just fall back to my favorite point.....Lotta people don't have health insurance, OK, Putting the guys who bankrupted SS in charge of my health is NOT the answer I'm looking for.

Have you ever heard of rituxan? Its a lymphoma drug that very well may have saved my wifes life. Now go to the canadian NHA or the England NHA and see if they will prescribe rituxan (they won't, its too expensive). I asked my oncologist about not giving rituxan to a lymphoma patient and she said one word "unconscionable" (forgive my spelling).

National Health Care is nothing more than a socialist model which fails over and over again. It halts research and medical advancements in its steps, causes access problems, and ultimately will bankrupt this country more than they are doing already.

You can throw out any number you want as far as uninsured goes, but I am more interested in solutions. Don't think for a second your party wants us insured, then they couldn't use it as a campaign issue (remember the california DNC being caught on tape planning how to extend the recession until the elections?) They don't feel your pain, they feel your wallet.

We need to repeal the Kennedy HMO bill, deregulate the business, allow a doctor to open a private practice again, and get out of the business of daily management of health care. Insurance should only be for disastorous bills and incidents, why would we have health insurance to see a doctor if we have a fricking cold....go see a nurse practitioner at walgreens for $54 and get your script filled (generic) for 5 more. If its not that damn bad, DON'T go the doctor for it and actually save the money.

This all fell apart when they made doctors mere "employees" of major healthcare corporations and made it impossible for any doctor to make money while the businesses roll on. I got an apendectomy in february, the hospital made something like 17k, the doctor who came in to do the surgery got $166. Anyone see a problem here? Dammit, duty calls, gotta cut the thread short.

quick PS....I guess thats why said doctor had to charge me $30 to fill out my FMLA paperwork when I missed work for the surgery....yay, more red tape.

[Scott Campbell]

The economy is stable............



People who think this economy is stable are in for a rude awakening when they're finally able to put a price tag on the bailouts from the housing bubble.

When you say bailouts do you mean foreclosures or free money from the Government to people who's homes lost value?


That counts too, but the bailout of Bear Stearns and other pillars of this countries financial markets that are overweighted in mortgage backed securities.

[Partial]

George W. Bush, IMO, has been a terrible President. His presidency has been marred by:

1. Starting a war in Iraq based on false accusations of Iraq'sWMD's, Hussain's involvemtent in 9/11 and al-Qaida. This has led to the loss of over 4,000 American service people, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $500 billion in costs where the bill is still running...

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

3. As Leaper noted, W. assigned many unqualified people to positions of authority. Michael Brown was appointed head of FEMA. He has previously directed a horse breeding farm. Though Harriet Miers graduated from law school, she never appeared in a court room as a lawyer or a judge. W. tried to appoint her to the U. S. Supreme Court.

4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had
1) I think I covered at nauseum why we had to start a war in Iraq, and no one lifted a finger to make the situation otherwise.

2) I 'm all for clean air, nuclear has ZERO greenhouse gas emissions....lets start building. But if you think there is any possible way to stop using oil without crippling the entire way of life we enjoy....please, fill me in, and don't get me started on the validity of man made global warming.

3) Agree fully, too much nepitism in this administration, although many that were criticized as good old boys were still very qualified. Every president does this and gets embarassed some, but I agree, its still wrong.

4) During bushs term "poor" people increased their earnings and wealth by a much greater percentage than "the rich" (don't have numbers at my disposal right now) If your point is that a guy making 1 million got a 1% raise and a guy making 20k got a 10% raise the the millionaire got 400% more of a raise than the poor guy, congratulations you passed number fudging 101. Now if you can show me ANY system that works better than capitilism as a way to raise the standard of living of EVERYONE I'm all for learning, but it will take an entire new thread to show you the full folly of the points you make here.

While I'm at it I guess pointing out that every person in america who paid taxes under clinton got a tax cut from bush and that as a percentage of taxes paid the poor got much bigger tax cuts. Again, if the rich pay all the taxes when you make sensible tax cuts....well, they might actually get more of the benefit.

5) If you wanna look at the source of the healthcare issue, again this is an entire new thread, but look at the Kennedy HMO bill back in the day. It stifled competition, put in new regulations was touted as "a breakthrough so every american can afford healthcare" and basically ran the costs of care thru the roof and allowed a few corporations to dominate the playing field without actually competing for business....interestingly the very thing libs complain about. EVERY time gov't tinkers with the free market model the results are disastorous. I do agree though that bush did little to help this problem like deregulating the industry and allowing companies to cross state lines, allowing start ups to offer individual disastor insurance to compete with the big boys without a crushing amount of red tape in the way.
sidenote: Most people can afford healthcare and choose not to, here in nevada a disastor policy with a 5k decuctible for a middle aged person is under $100 a month. This protects against bankruptcy and puts a person in charge of his own healthcare if coupled with a healthcare savings account (another tax cut for middle america that bush put through)

6) there is no law anywhere that says if you fire at our troops you get a fair trial. there is no law that says if you aren't wearing a uniform you get the geneva treatment. As far as gitmo goes, after the libs threw such a fit we solved the problem....when they tried to surrender on the battlefield we shot them since we had nowhere to put them (you won't here that in the news will you). I agree with you on torture, we don't need it, with al qaida there is no jack bauer situation going on. But to call people who took arms against our troops "political prisoners" thats laughable. Just like in any war when we leave iraq and the war is over the PRISONERS OF WAR will be released to their countries of origin, what would you do, release them back to the battlefield?? Should we re-arm them while we are at it?

7) While bush won't be considered a great president, the title of worst ever still goes to LBJ who decided the social security trust fund was there for him to spend and started the idea of unfunded liabilities in our govenment....you know, spend now pay when I'm dead. This opened us up for programs like medicare and medicaid that we can't really afford, ooo....oooo....and national healthcare.

OPF, I believe the correct term is "you got served" :D

[rdanomly]

The percentage of Americans without health insurance has been almost level for more than a decade. In 1993, the year of the great health care crisis, it was 15.3 percent. Last year, a nearly identical 15.6 percent of Americans were uninsured.



Fun with statistics :) There were about 250 million people in the U.S. back in the early 1990's, now there are closer to 300 million. So even though the rate remains similar, there are now an additional 8 million people that are still uninsured. That's more people than the entire population of Wisconsin that are now uninsured.

More importantly, how many people do you all know that could benefit from having it? Things might be ok in Wisco where there is still some appreciation for rewarding hard work with decent benefits. Four out of my seven brother & sister-in-laws are uninsured. My mother & farther-in-law are also uninsured. Luckily he is now eligible for SS so he can collect his benefit and be eligible for gov't health benefits. Previously he's been paying for his diabetes supplies out of his own pocket. This is a hard working man that was doing fine until the inept management ran the plastic molding company into the ground and he was left w/o a job that pays health benefits.

Sorry for the rant, I need to remind myself although I'm currently doing great, there are those out there that really can benefit from a few of my tax dollars.

[bobblehead]

couldn't agree more, there are plenty of people who could benefit from my tax dollars. My neighbor would like a mercedes and would benefit greatly if I bought him one, but umm.....well I hope you get my point.

I feel for your mother and father in law, honestly I do, this is why its unfair to bring personal examples into an arguement. I can't point out that your father in law should have bought cobra, and immediately went out and gotten a policy the day he got laid off. I can't point out that he should have passed on whatever superfluous spending he may have engaged in when he should have been planning for contingencies. See if I attack his behavior that put him in that situation I'm the bad guy. Again, I blame the Kennedy HMO bill that basically tied Health insurance to employment and made it difficult (and unpopular) to carry your own health insurance, does your employer carry your auto insurance?

I work with a LOT of people making over 70k a year, as do I. You know how many mercedes, bmw's, lexus there are in the parking lot....are you kidding me, buy a fricking toyota until you are in position to drive such a nice car. Most of them are whining now cuz the mortgage on their 500,000 dollar homes is getting tough, OK, but I been living in a condo that is paid for, might wanna try it before stepping up. Now they tell me I'm "LUCKY" that I don't have many bills each month. News alert...luck had nothing to do with it.

I am sure the people you speak of are good people who work hard and deserve a good life, but at some point we gotta quit trying to make everyone dependent on the public dole. What your stepfather needed was lower taxes in his district (and country) to provide a favorable atmosphere for investment and other companies would have come in and had a job to offer him. Corporations aren't relocating in Mexico because of cheap labor, its because of a MUCH more favorable operating environment. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and the most burdensome regulatory structure.

Again, what I said to tex remains true, I'm not cruel hearted, I'm just deep thinking enough to actually see that giving my money to your stepfather won't fix the problem, it will merely stop me from starting my own business in 3 years and offering people like him a good job.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Fun with statistics :) There were about 250 million people in the U.S. back in the early 1990's, now there are closer to 300 million. So even though the rate remains similar, there are now an additional 8 million people that are still uninsured. That's more people than the entire population of Wisconsin that are now uninsured.

Fun with statistics. That also means more ~42M more people are insured. Did you read the article? The numbers cited by MSM based on Census Bureau report are EXTREMELY flawed. The point is that the % of those that are uninsured remains stagnant because there are those that choose not to get insurance or don't realize they are insured because everybody under a certain income threshold is covered--even if they don't know it.

Let's see, of the 45M claimed to be uninsured in 2004:


While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported Medicaid enrollment at 51 million in 2002, the Census tabulated only 33 million, a difference of 18 million people. This is no minor statistical snag, as the Census Bureau reports there are more than 15 million "uninsured" individuals in households with less than $25,000 of income. Many of these individuals meet the income test for Medicaid or SCHIP eligibility, but they are not technically enrolled and are therefore considered by the Census Bureau to be uninsured. However, as soon as a person who is eligible for Medicaid, but not enrolled, enters the health care system through a hospital or clinic, he or she is automatically enrolled into the Medicaid plan. Therefore, counting this population as "uninsured" distorts the data significantly, since these individuals can enroll at any time and have their medical expenses paid whenever they require health care.

18M are just plain false. That's 18M that apparently are covered, but claimed on the Census Bureau they were not. Who knows how many don't have insurance but actually meet the minimum income threshold.


Many interviewees said they don't consider government-run health care to be insurance because they do not pay premiums and often have no co-pays or deductibles.

These are the people that don't pay for insurance, but the government covers them. Then, they say they don't consider it insurance. That's nice of them.


Roughly 9 million documented and undocumented aliens are generally included in the Census estimates. Many immigrants hesitate to participate in a government program of any kind, for fear of establishing a paper trail for immigration and national security authorities. Cultural mores, folkways, and language barriers also conspire to keep these people uninsured.

Hmmm...


Interestingly, the Census data for 2003 show almost 15 million uninsured people in households with annual incomes above $50,000, with 7.6 million of them in households with incomes of more than $75,000. That is certainly adequate income to afford health insurance in most states.

15M are uninsured, but probably have the resources to insure themselves.

I don't buy that we have a health care coverage crisis. We have a crisis in health care costs.

[Partial]

bobblehead, you're bringing up the points that the libs fail to acknowledge time and time again

[bobblehead]

bobblehead, you're bringing up the points that the libs fail to acknowledge time and time again

Yea, unfair of me, I know :)

[retailguy]

Sorry for the rant, I need to remind myself although I'm currently doing great, there are those out there that really can benefit from a few of my tax dollars.

How do you know this? Really? See, they'll always (in my mind) be those that "need" things. Some, like your father in law legitimately, other, not so much. When you create an "entitlement", those that don't need it come flooding out of the woodwork for a "free" handout.

Government is NOT the solution for most of our problems. Health care is THE poster child for this.

It is very telling that YOU are doing great. so am I, and so are the majority of poster in this thread. Yet, Bush has a less than 30% approval rating.... Yet, statistically, HALF of us are OK, and that's just the sample that voted.

I smell a little "repeat the same thing over and over till they believe it politics" going on.... but I am a self described cynic, so believe me or don't believe me...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

bobblehead, you're bringing up the points that the libs fail to acknowledge time and time again

Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.

[Partial]

bobblehead, you're bringing up the points that the libs fail to acknowledge time and time again

Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.

Such as?

[hoosier]

Have you ever heard of rituxan? Its a lymphoma drug that very well may have saved my wifes life. Now go to the canadian NHA or the England NHA and see if they will prescribe rituxan (they won't, its too expensive). I asked my oncologist about not giving rituxan to a lymphoma patient and she said one word "unconscionable" (forgive my spelling).

National Health Care is nothing more than a socialist model which fails over and over again. It halts research and medical advancements in its steps, causes access problems, and ultimately will bankrupt this country more than they are doing already.

Where on earth are you pulling this stuff from??? Rituxan is part of the standard treatment for B-cell lymphomas all around the world. There is no protocol in England or Canada for refusing it to patients who need it. According to Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence:


MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Rituximab is recommended for use in combination with a regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (CHOP) for the first-line treatment of people with CD20-positive diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma at clinical stage II, III or IV (see Section 2.3 of the original guideline document).
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:xrbKcRnrqHYJ:www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx%3Fss%3D15%26doc_id%3D9093%26nbr%3D490 7+rituxan+england&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[bobblehead]

sorry, doing research so I am deleting this.

[bobblehead]

Ok after doing as much research as I can, it does appear that in late 2003, about 6 years after america was using rituxan it became availabe in england. More than likely the people from england that I got my information from were in america before 2003.

Now I'm not sure that tyrones well thought out response of:
'
Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.


is fair, i would like to think I am consistent and am willing to stand behind my arguements if you just point out WHERE i am being ridiculous instead of simply declaring me to be so and feeling proud of yourself. Tyrone is using the time tried liberal tactic of make fun of the person and you will discredit his arguement. Hoosier actually did a little legwork and showed me something new...thank you.

I still stand by my point that national health care is a terrible thing. Remember it is free market capitalism that created rituxan and people suffering in england before 2003 couldn't get it. Furthermore if not for free market capitalism, it never would have even been discovered/created.

I'm still open to any dissent/debate from y'all, but lets try to keep the personal attack crap to a minimum ok tyrone....after all, if you say I'm ridiculous, there is no need to back it up.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This poll is a stitch.

To express disapproval of Bush, you have to be self-identified as miserable.
Those who are happy are associated with the Republican party.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Time for a new poll......

[Tyrone Bigguns]

bobblehead, you're bringing up the points that the libs fail to acknowledge time and time again

Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.

Such as?

Gladly.

"I feel for your mother and father in law, honestly I do, this is why its unfair to bring personal examples into an arguement."

Yet, on the previous page he brings in HIS OWN PERSONAL EXAMPLE...his wife's lymphoma cancer. That is pretty much being a hypocrite.

Secondly, he makes an argument that the person should have saved, planned, etc..for the problem that happened..loss of job. Yet, he bemoans the fact that a drug is costly in Canada and England...why can't we just apply his own logic that people should save for medical costs? Again, hypocritical.

Factually, he makes a statement that the drug is not prescribed in England. No proof, yet he is wrong. THat cancer drug is the WORLD'S best selling cancer drug. It has been approved for use in england. Now, might his wife's situation not been approved? I don't know...neither does he. And, to use the source..a physician..well, that is just poor. The physician has a vested interest in the status quo..and maintaining it.

Any reasonable and honest physician will tell you the current system we have here is broke. They may not advocate Obama/Hilary/Canada/whatever, but they do know what we have itsn't working.

Finally, to let the free market determine course of action..especially in the area of drugs is just plain dumb and wrong. Big Pharm are companies that should be looking to make as much money as possible...and, there is nothing wrong with that. BUt, that doesn't dovetail with what is actually best for our country.

I know you will want an example..so here we go. Currently, you can find many products for male erectile dysfuntion. Is this really the best use of research for the country? No. However, it is the best thing for the Pharm companies. Now, if equal development was spent on other less profitibable drugs..then it would be, but it doesn't happen.

Take TB. The world still suffers from it. There are more virulent strains right now..even in this country...250K reported cases. However for the past 20 or so years...no work being done..till recently. Why? Because the people that get TB arent' the type of people who have money.

Ultimately, it is best of the U.S. not to have this problem....affects us in many ways...your tax dollars support those poor people who need care, they are a drain on us, they can't buy goods, they can't work, etc.

ANd, worldwide it is bad...less people to buy our products, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Have you ever heard of rituxan? Its a lymphoma drug that very well may have saved my wifes life. Now go to the canadian NHA or the England NHA and see if they will prescribe rituxan (they won't, its too expensive). I asked my oncologist about not giving rituxan to a lymphoma patient and she said one word "unconscionable" (forgive my spelling).

National Health Care is nothing more than a socialist model which fails over and over again. It halts research and medical advancements in its steps, causes access problems, and ultimately will bankrupt this country more than they are doing already.

Where on earth are you pulling this stuff from??? Rituxan is part of the standard treatment for B-cell lymphomas all around the world. There is no protocol in England or Canada for refusing it to patients who need it. According to Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence:


MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Rituximab is recommended for use in combination with a regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (CHOP) for the first-line treatment of people with CD20-positive diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma at clinical stage II, III or IV (see Section 2.3 of the original guideline document).
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:xrbKcRnrqHYJ:www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx%3Fss%3D15%26doc_id%3D9093%26nbr%3D490 7+rituxan+england&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Hoosier..posted pretty much the same, minus the verication.

Sorry, didn't see your post.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok after doing as much research as I can, it does appear that in late 2003, about 6 years after america was using rituxan it became availabe in england. More than likely the people from england that I got my information from were in america before 2003.

Now I'm not sure that tyrones well thought out response of:
'
Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.


is fair, i would like to think I am consistent and am willing to stand behind my arguements if you just point out WHERE i am being ridiculous instead of simply declaring me to be so and feeling proud of yourself. Tyrone is using the time tried liberal tactic of make fun of the person and you will discredit his arguement. Hoosier actually did a little legwork and showed me something new...thank you.

I still stand by my point that national health care is a terrible thing. Remember it is free market capitalism that created rituxan and people suffering in england before 2003 couldn't get it. Furthermore if not for free market capitalism, it never would have even been discovered/created.

I'm still open to any dissent/debate from y'all, but lets try to keep the personal attack crap to a minimum ok tyrone....after all, if you say I'm ridiculous, there is no need to back it up.

And, bobblehead is using the time honored Lee Atwater tactic of going slimy.

Instead of waiting for my response he goes on the attack. Did i "make fun" of Bobblehead? No! I merely pointed out that he was being hypocritical.

Let's review.

YOu posted factually incorrect information. Is there any sort of mea culpa. No. The old time honored conservative tactic of repeating misinformation until it sticks.

If the "liberals" didn't do the research, your bs woulda been allowed to stand and woulda remained for you..a fact. Must have been too hard to actually think and do some legwork before making an asinine statement.

Then, after being proven wrong..you attack and make judgements.."proud." How he derives this...who knows. Then, you attempt to smear me. Nice.

I"ve addressed your hypocrisy in my previous post.

Lastly, to say that the drug was a result of the free market capitalism is hilarious. Drug companies get gov't money/tax breaks/subsidies. That ain't free market, my friend.

Finally, calling something you do as hypocrisy isn't a personal attack..no different than your cheap shots at liberals. Funny, how you can do that and it is ok..make generalizations...guess that again makes you a hypocrite.

You want civility...then lead by example.

[bobblehead]

I've only got a second tyrone, so I'll try to be succint here. First I didn't think using my wifes cancer was hypocritical cuz I wasn't using it as an example, merely a perspective for why I even heard of the drug. I didn't use her situation to back up my arguement, and I could have as easily left it out (and probably should have), rituxan was my point. I in no way made her part of the arguement. ie....my wife is from england and couldn't get the drug therefore the system sucks. If you took it that way you read too much into it.

As far as my meaculpa I thought I did do that in my next post when I said I was wrong and thanked hoosier for pointing it out...if more is necessary here goes.

I fully apologize for using an outdated arguement, after concurring with the person I got my information from he moved to america in June of 2001 to be treated for his lymphoma when the NHA in england wouldn't pay for rituxan with CHOP.

While I take full responsibility for having my facts wrong, I don't think it makes my arguement invalid, merely outdated. I actually am glad my error was pointed out because I am not proud or in the habit of making bad arguements. Again, I apologize to everyone.

PS...I NEVER ONCE repeated this after I realized I was wrong, don't lie about me to back up your arguement please.

I hope that is better. As far as my tactics, I was merely responding to you posting that I was a hypocrit and not worth responding to, then complaining that I didn't give you a chance to respond.

You said : Instead of waiting for my response he goes on the attack. Did i "make fun" of Bobblehead? No! I merely pointed out that he was being hypocritical. (and ridiculous....don't forget the ridiculous since that was the offensive part)

this was after your post of: Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.

This implication wasn't that a response was coming, it was that i was ridiculous and not worth responding too. I'm sorry if you feel that me being offended by that was out of line. I am always glad to debate, be it me that is learning or someone else, I do try to keep it civil. Again, I apologize and actually want to keep the debate rolling.

Just to quickly address a couple other points, saying someone should save for medical costs here is in no way applicable to the situation in england or canada where you can't even go "outside" the network for care, you can only go outside the country. I was saying the drug wasn't approved by the gov't because of cost, and that is why nationalizing healthcare bothers me. (again, my example was outdated, true).

I will quickly with the time I have point out that I agree our medical situation is a mess. I have said so many times, but I blame the Kennedy HMO bill that took healthcare out of our hands and put it into big providers who no longer have to compete on the open market for my business. I think we can do a lot better for everyone, I just don't think the guys who bankrupted SS are the guys to handle it.

PS.....Before I run off I would like to point out that Viagra was a failed heart medication, it wasn't researched/designed to treat ED, it was discovered by accident when the test subjects in the heart study didn't want to return the last of the medication when the study was halted (you can research that one, I'm positive and have done my own homework on it). I'll be waiting for your mea culpa on your error, but don't repeat that lie please.

I will post more later, I will be civil and I DO look forward to continuing the discussion in a civil way. Peace.

[Zool]

Good thing you didnt have a long time.

[bobblehead]

Good thing you didnt have a long time.

I type wicked fast (well for an amateur, about 55wpm is considered fast)

[retailguy]

You want civility...then lead by example.


He did. Your turn. Have you got it in you? We'll see, won't we? :P

[Freak Out]

No talk of the traitor McCellan in here?

[hoosier]

No talk of the traitor McCellan in here?

It sounds like he's now trying to soften the blow by saying that instead of transforming DC political culture, Dubya's administration got caught up in Washington politics as usual. So the book isn't really a critique of Dubya but of Wash DC. :roll:

[Freak Out]

No talk of the traitor McCellan in here?

It sounds like he's now trying to soften the blow by saying that instead of transforming DC political culture, Dubya's administration got caught up in Washington politics as usual. So the book isn't really a critique of Dubya but of Wash DC. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Sure Scott.

[bobblehead]

I rarely bother to listen to anything anyone says when trying to sell a book. I wouldn't read monica lewinsky's book if it came out anymore than I would read McClellans.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I've only got a second tyrone, so I'll try to be succint here. First I didn't think using my wifes cancer was hypocritical cuz I wasn't using it as an example, merely a perspective for why I even heard of the drug. I didn't use her situation to back up my arguement, and I could have as easily left it out (and probably should have), rituxan was my point. I in no way made her part of the arguement. ie....my wife is from england and couldn't get the drug therefore the system sucks. If you took it that way you read too much into it.

As far as my meaculpa I thought I did do that in my next post when I said I was wrong and thanked hoosier for pointing it out...if more is necessary here goes.

I fully apologize for using an outdated arguement, after concurring with the person I got my information from he moved to america in June of 2001 to be treated for his lymphoma when the NHA in england wouldn't pay for rituxan with CHOP.

While I take full responsibility for having my facts wrong, I don't think it makes my arguement invalid, merely outdated. I actually am glad my error was pointed out because I am not proud or in the habit of making bad arguements. Again, I apologize to everyone.

PS...I NEVER ONCE repeated this after I realized I was wrong, don't lie about me to back up your arguement please.

I hope that is better. As far as my tactics, I was merely responding to you posting that I was a hypocrit and not worth responding to, then complaining that I didn't give you a chance to respond.

You said : Instead of waiting for my response he goes on the attack. Did i "make fun" of Bobblehead? No! I merely pointed out that he was being hypocritical. (and ridiculous....don't forget the ridiculous since that was the offensive part)

this was after your post of: Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.

This implication wasn't that a response was coming, it was that i was ridiculous and not worth responding too. I'm sorry if you feel that me being offended by that was out of line. I am always glad to debate, be it me that is learning or someone else, I do try to keep it civil. Again, I apologize and actually want to keep the debate rolling.

Just to quickly address a couple other points, saying someone should save for medical costs here is in no way applicable to the situation in england or canada where you can't even go "outside" the network for care, you can only go outside the country. I was saying the drug wasn't approved by the gov't because of cost, and that is why nationalizing healthcare bothers me. (again, my example was outdated, true).

I will quickly with the time I have point out that I agree our medical situation is a mess. I have said so many times, but I blame the Kennedy HMO bill that took healthcare out of our hands and put it into big providers who no longer have to compete on the open market for my business. I think we can do a lot better for everyone, I just don't think the guys who bankrupted SS are the guys to handle it.

PS.....Before I run off I would like to point out that Viagra was a failed heart medication, it wasn't researched/designed to treat ED, it was discovered by accident when the test subjects in the heart study didn't want to return the last of the medication when the study was halted (you can research that one, I'm positive and have done my own homework on it). I'll be waiting for your mea culpa on your error, but don't repeat that lie please.

I will post more later, I will be civil and I DO look forward to continuing the discussion in a civil way. Peace.

1. Use of personal anecdotes is hypocritical..especially when you say that to another poster. And, said poster was using his family in the exact same context as you were...to illustrate a point.

You can claim your intentions, but the point is that you used it to buttress your reasoning as why our system is better. And, you were wrong.

I would happy if you could find ONE example of a drug that is used in this country that "they" don't use based on cost. More likely to find drugs used there earlier than here..as to our FDA regulations. ANd, you would be more liekly to find HMO's/PPO's denying use of "experimental" drugs or procedures. That is the name of the game when you are trying to defray costs.

Trust me, Bobble...i know far more about the state of medicine and it's practice than you. Unless you grew up discussing it at the dinner table for 10 plus years, discussing it with numerous physicians at dinner parties, and count a number of physician's in your IMMEDIATE family...i think i've been exposed to the problems far longer and more in depth than you.

2. Lie...i don't know what you are referring to. I never said you repeated a lie. What i said was that if it wasn't for vigilant "liberals" your lie woulda stood..and that is as bad as an intentional lie. Propaganda.

3. Ridiculous. The point is you did use a personal example. You did state wrong facts. That is ridiculous.

Partial noted that "liberals" weren't responding. I noted why. I was completely right about why we weren't...including myself in the liberal camp.

4. I apologize if you took my comment about ridiculous and hypocrisy. Perhaps a bit strong. But, in your previous posts you have generalized and derided liberals. Uncivil behavior started with your posts.

5. viagra. I wasn't being drug specific. THAT IS WHY I SPECIFICALLY DIDN"T MENTION ONE DRUG BY NAME. But, dont' be foolish. ED has long been a grail for Big Pharm. You quickly saw many others jump in...cialis, wellbutrin (developed for depression). Yes, many drugs have alternative usage...Rituxan is now being used for rhematoid arthritis I believe. The point wasn't that..it was that Drug companies develop drugs, not based on need, but on profit. As well they should. THat is what companies do. And, have a responsibility to shareholders. And, they developed it for hearts..which is a huge profit area.

But, there are plenty of maladies that NEED to be treated and that benefit society far more..yet aren't addressed. Do some research on TB-XDR (believe that is the correct name).

2 billion people died of TB in the past 2 centuries.

Perhaps you are unaware that TB's hiding away in the meat of two billion of us, a third of all humans.

Ask yourself why we now have a problem with this? Ask yourself why academia (researchers) and drug companies are only now working in conjunction.

Because as smart as these academic guys are, they don't make drugs. Drug companies make drugs. The drug companies have the money, the people, and, honestly, the kick-ass robots -- robots capable of screening and tweaking and testing millions of chemical compounds at a time. Brute force. What academics offer are new ways of finding drugs -- the more fundamental and creative end of what's called the drug pipeline.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the pipeline was broken. Snapped in two. Academics had ideas but no money. Drug companies had money but no will. They didn't see a market. Ah, the key point..MARKET...big market...but, not enough REVENUE. For the most part, people rich enough to pay for drugs don't get TB -- it's mostly the homeless, the global destitute, and prisoners.

And, why would Drug companies want to help them? Kinda like AIDS drugs in Africa...remember that. Remember how many people in Africa and THE UNITED STATES couldn't afford those expensive drugs?

So, to let the "Free market" decide (which you never really addressed...as the gov't made a clear decision on how it was going to spend it's money back in the 20/30's) is foolish.

The market doesn't have empathy, the market doesn't understand that those people dying could buy our products, the market never learns from it's past mistakes. The market is like a crack addict...it needs to get it's fix...and it doesnt' think.

[bobblehead]

You said:

YOu posted factually incorrect information. Is there any sort of mea culpa. No. The old time honored conservative tactic of repeating misinformation until it sticks.

now you say:

2. Lie...i don't know what you are referring to. I never said you repeated a lie. What i said was that if it wasn't for vigilant "liberals" your lie woulda stood..and that is as bad as an intentional lie. Propaganda.

Again, I never repeated it once I realized the situation had changed. I apologized, thanked hoosier for pointing it out and moved on.

I still don't think me referencing my wife was in any way used as part of my arguement, nor to butress my arguement. I never said anything about her illness proving a need for anything, quite the opposite. Its hardly the same as saying we need national health care cuz I can't afford medicine for my wife in which case the only way to counter my arguement would be to tell me tough luck and look like an ass. I understand your point, but I honestly think my referance was very different than the one I called unfair.

I will have to do some research to find a new example of a drug they don't use that we do, but your own admission here is that they exist (or in the case of rituxan, did exist for 6 years)....(you claim it happens more the other way...maybe, I can't think of an example though, and you didn't offer one). And my point about the innovation that created the drug happened here, is even stronger. thus strengthening other countries national health care down the road,

I actually didn't think I derided liberals in previous posts, other than my original post where I stated you can't very often convince liberals cuz they go by what they "feel" is right and don't look deeply into the issues...I didn't mean that to be deriding, but I see how it could be taken. I really can't think of being uncivil or deriding.....perhaps you were mad at tex and lumped me into the same camp. (perhaps there are examples, but I generally argue my point in a civil way, and respect your opinion to do so as well) Perhaps you took Partials post as ME being deriding, but even when I read what he said, my thought was....well, I WANT them to respond, not I'm trying to put them in their place.

Not sure entirely how to respond to your entire medical industry spiel. I'm not questioning your knowledge, I'm questioning what you think is a better solution than free market capitalism. I have said in an ealrier post that I am all for govn't grants/awards for benchmark accomplishments in alternative energy, and I am all for the same for say TB drugs or anything else that helps mankind....but that is far different than allowing govn't to take over the health industry.

As far as you knowing more about medical industry than I do, maybe...maybe not, you can't know that for certain, and niether can I. I did go to a nursing college, so many of my female friends are nurses. I do discuss things with them, whether or not that makes me as knowledgeable as you I have no idea. But again, I don't think we are so far off in our thinking, I'm just wondering about solutions. I DO respect your opinions and input on this, please don't feel the need to prove to me you know your stuff, I never questioned it.

Being that we are moving toward a more civil tone and a more logic based debate (both of us) I am interested in what you think is a good solution. I have stated my position and that is gov't grants and awards for benchmark accomplishments in dang near anything the free market won't address. (even things like a concrete/blacktop mix that won't break down as easily). If you have other or better ideas I'm all for hearing them, again, no need to be confrontational on either of our parts.

[bobblehead]

Ok, I actually went thru and read EVERY post I have made on these two threads and I never derided liberals. the closest I came was when i said a conservative couldn't get their vote because of their faith on certain things...evidence to the contrary (tax cuts specifically) and I followed it by saying tex does the same thing with the GOP. This ONE instance I found where it could be interpreted as deriding was more a comment on republicans trying to convince liberals when it isn't necessary to win elections.

I think in reading along, you assosciated me with all conservative posters and attached me to certain deriding comments made. Quite the opposite of being uncivil, I really try to engage Liberals in honest debate....1) I might learn something new. 2) I might teach them something new. 3) We might combine for a good idea.

So, that being said, I hope you can admit you made a mistake when you said:

4. I apologize if you took my comment about ridiculous and hypocrisy. Perhaps a bit strong. But, in your previous posts you have generalized and derided liberals. Uncivil behavior started with your posts.

and we can move onward in good discussion. If you can point out me being deriding other than responding to the 'ridiculous hypocrasy' thing I will apologize. I actually have spent most of my time debating tex anyway.

I'm not saying I'm perfect in my posts, I do the best I can and am civil. I'm doing my best to carry this debate on and not have hard feelings...they won't accomplish anything anyway.

[Partial]

Thinking that a free market is going to have drug companies only focus on the most expensive drugs is foolish. If anything, it would promote those companies spending the money researching curing smaller things, as the patent would be longer, and there wouldn't be 10-20 other companies trying to solve the same problem..

I would think that a company would be pretty happy if they can get a patent for 10 years on a drug that treats something fewer people have.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You said:

YOu posted factually incorrect information. Is there any sort of mea culpa. No. The old time honored conservative tactic of repeating misinformation until it sticks.

now you say:

2. Lie...i don't know what you are referring to. I never said you repeated a lie. What i said was that if it wasn't for vigilant "liberals" your lie woulda stood..and that is as bad as an intentional lie. Propaganda.

Again, I never repeated it once I realized the situation had changed. I apologized, thanked hoosier for pointing it out and moved on.

I still don't think me referencing my wife was in any way used as part of my arguement, nor to butress my arguement. I never said anything about her illness proving a need for anything, quite the opposite. Its hardly the same as saying we need national health care cuz I can't afford medicine for my wife in which case the only way to counter my arguement would be to tell me tough luck and look like an ass. I understand your point, but I honestly think my referance was very different than the one I called unfair.

I will have to do some research to find a new example of a drug they don't use that we do, but your own admission here is that they exist (or in the case of rituxan, did exist for 6 years)....(you claim it happens more the other way...maybe, I can't think of an example though, and you didn't offer one). And my point about the innovation that created the drug happened here, is even stronger. thus strengthening other countries national health care down the road,

I actually didn't think I derided liberals in previous posts, other than my original post where I stated you can't very often convince liberals cuz they go by what they "feel" is right and don't look deeply into the issues...I didn't mean that to be deriding, but I see how it could be taken. I really can't think of being uncivil or deriding.....perhaps you were mad at tex and lumped me into the same camp. (perhaps there are examples, but I generally argue my point in a civil way, and respect your opinion to do so as well) Perhaps you took Partials post as ME being deriding, but even when I read what he said, my thought was....well, I WANT them to respond, not I'm trying to put them in their place.

Not sure entirely how to respond to your entire medical industry spiel. I'm not questioning your knowledge, I'm questioning what you think is a better solution than free market capitalism. I have said in an ealrier post that I am all for govn't grants/awards for benchmark accomplishments in alternative energy, and I am all for the same for say TB drugs or anything else that helps mankind....but that is far different than allowing govn't to take over the health industry.

As far as you knowing more about medical industry than I do, maybe...maybe not, you can't know that for certain, and niether can I. I did go to a nursing college, so many of my female friends are nurses. I do discuss things with them, whether or not that makes me as knowledgeable as you I have no idea. But again, I don't think we are so far off in our thinking, I'm just wondering about solutions. I DO respect your opinions and input on this, please don't feel the need to prove to me you know your stuff, I never questioned it.

Being that we are moving toward a more civil tone and a more logic based debate (both of us) I am interested in what you think is a good solution. I have stated my position and that is gov't grants and awards for benchmark accomplishments in dang near anything the free market won't address. (even things like a concrete/blacktop mix that won't break down as easily). If you have other or better ideas I'm all for hearing them, again, no need to be confrontational on either of our parts.

1. mea culpa...you are reading that wrong. I am making the same type of general statement that you made about liberals and how they attack.

2. Anecdotes. Sorry, but i dont' see any difference. the liberal says we need it cause my folks don't have health insurance. The conservative posts that his wife woulda died if we didn't have our system. That is what it boils down to...same type of argument.

3. Drugs. I can't recall either, but i've seen it many times that the FDA doesn't approve things as quickly as Europe. THat is both good and bad.

4. Innovation. I don't see it. Sorry.

5. Insults. If you don't see it or think that you have, then you aren't self aware. Yes, your comments are insulting. To generalize that liberals "feel" is insulting.

And, when you didn't like my post..you didn't just ask why i said it was hypocritical or ridiculous...you went on the offensive about how liberals operate. THat is the most base and worst type of debate.

Let's take a look at one of your other posts.

he's not my favorite president, but your post pretty much sums up liberals I can't debate on an intellectual level, so I'll resort to name calling.

You don't find that insulting?

6. Health Industry. Impossible to present. I can point out the good things in a socialize situation, you can point out the negative. I can point out the flaws in the current, you can point out the good.

Most certainly the best/efficient/less costly is socialized. Will there be problems yes. Will we lose innovation..probably. Will we save money because we won't have uninsured showing up at ER's..yes.

7. As you want tex to trust you on finance..trust me on medical. I"m the son of two physicians. I had 10 years of listening to medical issues and the econ behind it...and i hear it today from my physician brother.

[bobblehead]

I asked tex to trust me on the definition of a financial term. If you tell me to trust you about a medical procedure I probably will, but for you to generalize with this:

Most certainly the best/efficient/less costly is socialized. Will there be problems yes. Will we lose innovation..probably. Will we save money because we won't have uninsured showing up at ER's..yes.

I will respectfully disagree. Again, they bankrupted social security, a very simple program to run, I reject your premise that they can run medicine "best/efficient/less costly" As a matter of fact, I couldn't think of anything further from the truth.

I did admit that my comment on "feel" could be read as deriding, but again, I was defining why we shouldn't bother trying to get votes from them, and i said it was on SOME issues. And I backed it up with evidence....Libs tend tend to think tax increases will somehow increase revenues to the gov't even though indisputable evidence shows that the treasury recieves 19.5% of GDP regardless of tax rates.

Point taken on my wifes condition and how it read. I don't need to personalize the arguement, the facts should speak for themselves. I still don't think it was the same, but i can see how you do.

I didn't ask why you thought I was ridiculous/hypocritical because you implied right there that I wasn't worth responding too, so yes, I took a shot back at you. (but a provoked shot)

And again...on the post you point out about me summing up liberals...I was directly responding to a liberal provacation, hardly me taking random shots at libs.

Now, because I respect your knowledge and opinion, I actually want to know why you think gov't can run healthcare despite all evidence of them bankrupting us with every social program they start (see links in my other post for evidence.) And although you have a family of physicians, this is a far cry from saying I should trust you that politicians can run it better.

[Freak Out]

Former prosecutors challenge White House immunity claim

Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: May 29, 2008 08:43:06 PM

WASHINGTON — Twenty former U.S. attorneys, both Republicans and Democrats, urged a federal judge Thursday to intervene in a constitutional battle over whether two White House officials should be forced to testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The former top prosecutors, including two who served under President Bush, argue in court papers that the judge should reject the Bush administration's assertion of blanket immunity for presidential chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in the congressional investigation.

Democrats in the House of Representatives say they were forced to sue in March, more than a year after they launched the probe, because the administration has refused to allow Miers and Bolten to provide crucial information about the reasons the prosecutors were fired. The case also could determine how former presidential adviser Karl Rove responds to a subpoena in a related congressional investigation.

The lawsuit accuses administration officials of injecting partisan considerations into the firing decisions and making "questionable or outright false statements" in subsequent explanations to Congress.

The prosecutors acknowledged that the administration could have legitimate legal reasons for not allowing Bolten and Miers to testify. However, they called on U.S. District Judge John D. Bates to weigh Congress' arguments carefully because of the serious nature of the allegations.

"This congressional inquiry involves the possible subversion of principles at the core of Constitutional government," they wrote. "It is a matter of the utmost importance for Congress to conduct a complete investigation to determine whether White House officials have injected, or attempted to inject, partisan considerations into a process that must be rigorously insulated from such considerations."

The administration has denied any wrongdoing and maintains that Congress has no compelling interest to review White House deliberations on the matter.

The prosecutors who voiced support for Congress' position include officials who served under presidents Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and both President Bush and his father, former president George H.W. Bush.

Alan Bersin, a former U.S. attorney under Clinton, and William Braniff, a former U.S. attorney under George H.W. Bush, both served as the top federal prosecutor in San Diego, where the Bush administration later fired then-U.S. attorney Carol Lam. Former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was among the ousted prosecutors, and Matthew Orwig, a former U.S. attorney under Bush in Beaumont, Texas, also signed the brief.

"This brief is apolitical and legally sound," said Orwig, who was described in internal Justice Department documents that came out during the controversy as a "loyal Bushie." "It was clear as this controversy unfolded that the reasons given for the firings were fabricated. It also became clear that the congressional investigation was being impeded."

Four legal and watchdog organizations also filed briefs in support of Congress: the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the Rutherford Institute, Judicial Watch, and Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington.

The congressional investigation into the firings of the U.S. attorneys produced suspicions but no proof that the prosecutors were targeted because they'd rebuffed Republican demands that they bring weak voter-fraud cases against Democrats or because they'd mounted corruption investigations of Republicans.

Although White House and Justice Department officials have acknowledged the firings were handled badly, they've insisted the ousters weren't orchestrated to hinder or encourage certain prosecutions. A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment on the latest developments in the lawsuit.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I asked tex to trust me on the definition of a financial term. If you tell me to trust you about a medical procedure I probably will, but for you to generalize with this:

Most certainly the best/efficient/less costly is socialized. Will there be problems yes. Will we lose innovation..probably. Will we save money because we won't have uninsured showing up at ER's..yes.

I will respectfully disagree. Again, they bankrupted social security, a very simple program to run, I reject your premise that they can run medicine "best/efficient/less costly" As a matter of fact, I couldn't think of anything further from the truth.

I did admit that my comment on "feel" could be read as deriding, but again, I was defining why we shouldn't bother trying to get votes from them, and i said it was on SOME issues. And I backed it up with evidence....Libs tend tend to think tax increases will somehow increase revenues to the gov't even though indisputable evidence shows that the treasury recieves 19.5% of GDP regardless of tax rates.

Point taken on my wifes condition and how it read. I don't need to personalize the arguement, the facts should speak for themselves. I still don't think it was the same, but i can see how you do.

I didn't ask why you thought I was ridiculous/hypocritical because you implied right there that I wasn't worth responding too, so yes, I took a shot back at you. (but a provoked shot)

And again...on the post you point out about me summing up liberals...I was directly responding to a liberal provacation, hardly me taking random shots at libs.

Now, because I respect your knowledge and opinion, I actually want to know why you think gov't can run healthcare despite all evidence of them bankrupting us with every social program they start (see links in my other post for evidence.) And although you have a family of physicians, this is a far cry from saying I should trust you that politicians can run it better.

I don't think the gov't does a terrible job in everything they do. But, what you have ingeniously done is label certain ones social programs.

THe question i would pose to you is why the gov't can run certain things well...military, etc., but fails in other areas. OR would you suggest as many conservs do that we should privatize everthing...which, i think, even you..would be a disaster.

It isnt' that i think the gov't is so great, i think the current situation is horrible. Look, you and the rest of the country can think America is smarter than the rest of the world, but you have to admit that it does seem odd that the western world is going the opposite of us.

I think that there needs to be a radical shift in healthcare..prevention, etc...that just won't be accomplished with the current system...it is too entrenched and nothing will change.

The current system is like the old song...the noble duke of york..."cause when you are only halfway up..you are neither up or down." We cannot continue down this road.

If you want to go down the opposite road of socialized medicine...then i'm all for it...but, then we go down the road of pay for service...and you and I both know that ain't happening.

I believe that is far better to have more people getting routine care then it is to have cutting edge technology.

[bobblehead]

I don't disagree with most of what you say, some, but most I agree, the current medical system is a mess. The computer systems and record keeping in most medical offices is not even up to par with my home office.

I would quickly point out that there is a MOUNTAIN of waste in the military, but it is a system that requires the gov't to run it, much like police, firestations, ect. Same goes for certain other things the gov't must do or it won't get done, like roads, ect....but they usually contract out where possible. This is how I feel about researching drugs that pharma doesn't want to, I've explained that.

I only label social programs as such....any program that tries to pool resources to spread risk equally. They generally turn into "take from the haves give to the have nots" real quick, and in PRINCIPLE I think it would be great if it worked, but as I have pointed out and cited articles, such programs as SS and medicare are bankrupting this country, but we aren't even fully aware of it because the gov't doesn't use standard accounting processes.

We simply flat out disagree on the routine care vs. cutting edge technology issue. I believe that in the long run its better for EVERYONE if we continue to improve technology, then things you call routine care become DIRT cheap. Just as one simple example, allergy medications. They used to be script only, cutting edge stuff, now you can buy a month of claritin for under $5 a month. I believe routine care is already VERY affordable, but you can't MAKE people get it. I get it, thru a physical with lifesigns every september. there is a website: isyourhealthatrisk.com that you can visit and if you live in the area you can get a multitude of risk factor tests done for $200. They don't treat, they simply tell you "this flagged, see your doctor." See, I'm all for programs like this to help you manage your health in a cost effective way, while utilizing a disastor policy and health savings acct. Problem is the HMO's have gotten so powerful that they lobby congress and get silly restrictions put in to stop people from opening practices, red tape to make it expensive and confusing. I understand the need for regulations, but its ludicrous. Ask your parents if they would even consider opening their own practice nowdays...(maybe they have, I don't know, but I'm guessing....)

Ok, off topic a bit, I have a serious question for you since you have contacts and you said I can trust you. Why has the FDA cracked down so hard on HgH use?? Doctors are afraid to prescribe it, when a year ago, not so much. Certain companies from china that were selling it cheap can't even fill a script for you anymore. (I mean 1/4 the price of the name brands). From everything I have been able to find/read/discuss HgH in doses of 1-2IU a day do nothing but benefit. Even eliminating arthritis in most people. Literally NO downside. The only adverse effect linked to it in the slightest is an increase in Carpal Tunnel syndrome.

I understand the sports angle, MLB cracking down, but that doesn't explain why doctors are now afraid to prescribe it for my mother when 18 months ago they weren't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't disagree with most of what you say, some, but most I agree, the current medical system is a mess. The computer systems and record keeping in most medical offices is not even up to par with my home office.

I would quickly point out that there is a MOUNTAIN of waste in the military, but it is a system that requires the gov't to run it, much like police, firestations, ect. Same goes for certain other things the gov't must do or it won't get done, like roads, ect....but they usually contract out where possible. This is how I feel about researching drugs that pharma doesn't want to, I've explained that.

I only label social programs as such....any program that tries to pool resources to spread risk equally. They generally turn into "take from the haves give to the have nots" real quick, and in PRINCIPLE I think it would be great if it worked, but as I have pointed out and cited articles, such programs as SS and medicare are bankrupting this country, but we aren't even fully aware of it because the gov't doesn't use standard accounting processes.

We simply flat out disagree on the routine care vs. cutting edge technology issue. I believe that in the long run its better for EVERYONE if we continue to improve technology, then things you call routine care become DIRT cheap. Just as one simple example, allergy medications. They used to be script only, cutting edge stuff, now you can buy a month of claritin for under $5 a month. I believe routine care is already VERY affordable, but you can't MAKE people get it. I get it, thru a physical with lifesigns every september. there is a website: isyourhealthatrisk.com that you can visit and if you live in the area you can get a multitude of risk factor tests done for $200. They don't treat, they simply tell you "this flagged, see your doctor." See, I'm all for programs like this to help you manage your health in a cost effective way, while utilizing a disastor policy and health savings acct. Problem is the HMO's have gotten so powerful that they lobby congress and get silly restrictions put in to stop people from opening practices, red tape to make it expensive and confusing. I understand the need for regulations, but its ludicrous. Ask your parents if they would even consider opening their own practice nowdays...(maybe they have, I don't know, but I'm guessing....)

Ok, off topic a bit, I have a serious question for you since you have contacts and you said I can trust you. Why has the FDA cracked down so hard on HgH use?? Doctors are afraid to prescribe it, when a year ago, not so much. Certain companies from china that were selling it cheap can't even fill a script for you anymore. (I mean 1/4 the price of the name brands). From everything I have been able to find/read/discuss HgH in doses of 1-2IU a day do nothing but benefit. Even eliminating arthritis in most people. Literally NO downside. The only adverse effect linked to it in the slightest is an increase in Carpal Tunnel syndrome.

I understand the sports angle, MLB cracking down, but that doesn't explain why doctors are now afraid to prescribe it for my mother when 18 months ago they weren't.

1. You don't or can't answer why the gov't is poor (or poorer) at running one type of program vs. another.

2. YOu don't answer why we are going down a trail that other smart countries aren't. I don't know about you, but that is troubling. And, you say our system of medicine is bankrupting us..c'mon...that is hilarious. We spend more money here as a percent than the socialized do.

3. Costs. I understand your point..my point is that it literally costs an arm and a leg to treat a simple thing like a broken arm. Those type of costs are ridiculous. I"m sorry, but this country needs to get basic coverage under control....not to sound callous, but the last thing we need is new and improved heart procedures and radical surgeries. If we are looking at the greatest good, then those people will have to suffer. I'm sorry for their demise, but the ininsured and others who pay out the nose for the basics are being killed...5 bucks for aspirin? LOL

4. Innovation. I don't agree. Here is why. I worked early in my career in the defense industry. It is quite robust, yet they can only make a profit of around 5%...or they do cost plus contracts. Yet, you dont' see Lockheed, Saic, etc. leaving because they can't make money. You dont' see software engineers, engineers, etc. not entering the field because they won't make a livng. They continue to field thousands of resumes because of STEADY EMPLOYMENT. ANd, people continue to get better educated because they can bill to the gov't at a higher rate if they have a masters/phd.

The same thing can be done in the Pharm industry.

Lastly, it is time to take the insurance industry outta the picture. They are at odds with the nature of healthcare. they make money denying people coverage or claims. I can't as a capitalist get angry at that, but as a human being i can.

I know this will seem like "liberal" propaganda, but just yesterday we have an article in the AZ Republic about this..and NO ONE WILL CLAIM THAT PAPER IS LIBERAL OR AZ A LIBERAL STATE.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/30/20080530biz-insurance0529.html

5. Own practice. My dad had his own practice. Most physicians I know are part of groups. BUt, they wouldn't agree about opening a practice, though they are no fans of HMOs...but, my dad wasn't in a field that was dominated by that..he was in a field that people decided to pay for and received no money for insurance..but, he did do surgery on those who were covered by insurance.

My folks were long preaching that socialized was coming...from the late 70s/early 80s.

YOu should face the inevitable.

BTW, get ready to have procedures done outta the country as well...that is on its way. If you don't want that...or at least keep it to a minimum..then socialized is the way.

Just wait till you get an offer to split the cost savings with you...you'll pocket let's say 8K because you have a procedure done in a hospital in Thailand. And, that hospital will be better than a U.S. and have better nurse to patient ratio..and soon enough will be part of your healthcare network. It's on its way.

6. HGH. I will ask, but i doubt they will have an answer for you. The physicians in intimately know aren't involved in daily type care, geriatric care, or involved in writing scripts. 2 are involved in diagnosing and one was involved in surgery.

Unfortunately, this is akin to asking a family law practitioner about tax law.

Did you ask the doctor who woudn't prescribe? If not, why not?

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the physicians don't want the hassle that comes with the gov't looking at them. THey prolly see it as a red flag to be avoided. Plus, many docs prescribe it to much younger patients..i know that it is a staple in hollywood.

Prolly just wanna avoid any semblance of impropriety...docs are pretty conservative and don't want the fda/irs looking at them.

Though, i see Cenegenics advertisements all the time...they are still doing it.

As for my personal knowledge of HgH (from the lifting community)..i'm inclined to agree with you. But, alternatively, i don't know what else a physician can prescribe instead of it.

[bobblehead]

I don't disagree with most of what you say, some, but most I agree, the current medical system is a mess. The computer systems and record keeping in most medical offices is not even up to par with my home office.

I would quickly point out that there is a MOUNTAIN of waste in the military, but it is a system that requires the gov't to run it, much like police, firestations, ect. Same goes for certain other things the gov't must do or it won't get done, like roads, ect....but they usually contract out where possible. This is how I feel about researching drugs that pharma doesn't want to, I've explained that.

I only label social programs as such....any program that tries to pool resources to spread risk equally. They generally turn into "take from the haves give to the have nots" real quick, and in PRINCIPLE I think it would be great if it worked, but as I have pointed out and cited articles, such programs as SS and medicare are bankrupting this country, but we aren't even fully aware of it because the gov't doesn't use standard accounting processes.

We simply flat out disagree on the routine care vs. cutting edge technology issue. I believe that in the long run its better for EVERYONE if we continue to improve technology, then things you call routine care become DIRT cheap. Just as one simple example, allergy medications. They used to be script only, cutting edge stuff, now you can buy a month of claritin for under $5 a month. I believe routine care is already VERY affordable, but you can't MAKE people get it. I get it, thru a physical with lifesigns every september. there is a website: isyourhealthatrisk.com that you can visit and if you live in the area you can get a multitude of risk factor tests done for $200. They don't treat, they simply tell you "this flagged, see your doctor." See, I'm all for programs like this to help you manage your health in a cost effective way, while utilizing a disastor policy and health savings acct. Problem is the HMO's have gotten so powerful that they lobby congress and get silly restrictions put in to stop people from opening practices, red tape to make it expensive and confusing. I understand the need for regulations, but its ludicrous. Ask your parents if they would even consider opening their own practice nowdays...(maybe they have, I don't know, but I'm guessing....)

Ok, off topic a bit, I have a serious question for you since you have contacts and you said I can trust you. Why has the FDA cracked down so hard on HgH use?? Doctors are afraid to prescribe it, when a year ago, not so much. Certain companies from china that were selling it cheap can't even fill a script for you anymore. (I mean 1/4 the price of the name brands). From everything I have been able to find/read/discuss HgH in doses of 1-2IU a day do nothing but benefit. Even eliminating arthritis in most people. Literally NO downside. The only adverse effect linked to it in the slightest is an increase in Carpal Tunnel syndrome.

I understand the sports angle, MLB cracking down, but that doesn't explain why doctors are now afraid to prescribe it for my mother when 18 months ago they weren't.

1. You don't or can't answer why the gov't is poor (or poorer) at running one type of program vs. another.

2. YOu don't answer why we are going down a trail that other smart countries aren't. I don't know about you, but that is troubling. And, you say our system of medicine is bankrupting us..c'mon...that is hilarious. We spend more money here as a percent than the socialized do.

3. Costs. I understand your point..my point is that it literally costs an arm and a leg to treat a simple thing like a broken arm. Those type of costs are ridiculous. I"m sorry, but this country needs to get basic coverage under control....not to sound callous, but the last thing we need is new and improved heart procedures and radical surgeries. If we are looking at the greatest good, then those people will have to suffer. I'm sorry for their demise, but the ininsured and others who pay out the nose for the basics are being killed...5 bucks for aspirin? LOL

4. Innovation. I don't agree. Here is why. I worked early in my career in the defense industry. It is quite robust, yet they can only make a profit of around 5%...or they do cost plus contracts. Yet, you dont' see Lockheed, Saic, etc. leaving because they can't make money. You dont' see software engineers, engineers, etc. not entering the field because they won't make a livng. They continue to field thousands of resumes because of STEADY EMPLOYMENT. ANd, people continue to get better educated because they can bill to the gov't at a higher rate if they have a masters/phd.

The same thing can be done in the Pharm industry.

Lastly, it is time to take the insurance industry outta the picture. They are at odds with the nature of healthcare. they make money denying people coverage or claims. I can't as a capitalist get angry at that, but as a human being i can.

I know this will seem like "liberal" propaganda, but just yesterday we have an article in the AZ Republic about this..and NO ONE WILL CLAIM THAT PAPER IS LIBERAL OR AZ A LIBERAL STATE.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/30/20080530biz-insurance0529.html

5. Own practice. My dad had his own practice. Most physicians I know are part of groups. BUt, they wouldn't agree about opening a practice, though they are no fans of HMOs...but, my dad wasn't in a field that was dominated by that..he was in a field that people decided to pay for and received no money for insurance..but, he did do surgery on those who were covered by insurance.

My folks were long preaching that socialized was coming...from the late 70s/early 80s.

YOu should face the inevitable.

BTW, get ready to have procedures done outta the country as well...that is on its way. If you don't want that...or at least keep it to a minimum..then socialized is the way.

Just wait till you get an offer to split the cost savings with you...you'll pocket let's say 8K because you have a procedure done in a hospital in Thailand. And, that hospital will be better than a U.S. and have better nurse to patient ratio..and soon enough will be part of your healthcare network. It's on its way.

6. HGH. I will ask, but i doubt they will have an answer for you. The physicians in intimately know aren't involved in daily type care, geriatric care, or involved in writing scripts. 2 are involved in diagnosing and one was involved in surgery.

Unfortunately, this is akin to asking a family law practitioner about tax law.

Did you ask the doctor who woudn't prescribe? If not, why not?

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the physicians don't want the hassle that comes with the gov't looking at them. THey prolly see it as a red flag to be avoided. Plus, many docs prescribe it to much younger patients..i know that it is a staple in hollywood.

Prolly just wanna avoid any semblance of impropriety...docs are pretty conservative and don't want the fda/irs looking at them.

Though, i see Cenegenics advertisements all the time...they are still doing it.

As for my personal knowledge of HgH (from the lifting community)..i'm inclined to agree with you. But, alternatively, i don't know what else a physician can prescribe instead of it.

1) by pointing out the military issue I thought I was being clear that I think they run ALL programs very inefficiently, but some they by necessity have to run.

2) I disagree that other "smart" countries are heading opposite of us, unless you mean that most of europe is moving back towards reeling in the social dole and we are moving towards expanding it. I also reject that other countries are "smarter" than us...unless you mean ireland or khazakstan(forgive my spelling). Europe is ahead of us as far as getting bankrupted by gov't spending, that is why they are fighting the unions ect to curve back.

2b) I should be clearer, our socialized medicine programs are bankrupting our govn't, and it is this very thing that has driven costs beyond recognition. That and outrageously silly regulations. You may have a point on the spending more as a percent, but i would want to know how much we spend per capita, and then as a percent.

3) This is probably the heart of our disagreement. I believe we are headed for a society where illness and/or aging become a thing of the past. Noted inventor/prognosticator/otherwise genius Ray Kurzweil who has predicted many things VERY accurately is predicting an end to aging, basically being able to repair our bodies on the fly indefinately. he uses models like advances in genome/machine/discoveries to predict this will be within 25 years. I am looking for the greatest long term good, you are looking at the now, and in the NOW you are right, but remember, we got to the now thru innovation, we could have stopped in the 70's, but think of where we would be if we had. Your entitled to your opinion on this one, and I will respect it, but I couldn't disagree more.

4) I am missing something, will have to go figure out the heart of this point so I can agree/disagree, or something.

The point about insurance denying coverage that rightly they should pay...that isn't capitalist, that is criminal, problem is they own the legislature. A nebraska state legislature in ?? '03 tried to pass a state law where if an insurance company frivilously denied a claim they were liable for they pay triple....one part pay the bill, one part for the patient having to be hassled, one part fine. It almost passed and at the last hour several people changed their vote and he was heartily defeated in a huge smear campaign when his re-election came up.

The link you posted, I agree, it happens and such practice should meet MONSTER fines. You have to keep the integrity of the capitalist model if it is to suceed, that is why we have anti-trust laws...I'm not against reasonable regulation.

I don't have to face the inevitable, I'll fight it tooth and nail cuz I don't believe its in anyones best interest. England has to import doctors cuz the market is shot, its more profitable to do damn near anything else. You are right about the offer to have something done in another country. I have already researched it well, bumrungrat hospital in thailand is fantastic and cheap, I plan on having a monster thourough physical done in october when I'm there for around 400 US. But mind you the Thai who are in the socialized medicine network don't have access to that hospital.

Cenegenics does still prescribe, but they make you go thru all their programs including purchase and it generally runs about a grand a month. The doctor I had with my mother said something like "I can't point to a specific ailment to prescribe it for, feeling better and being healthier isn't an ailment recognized by the FDA." So basically you are right, its that they don't want the red flag, I guess my question was why is the FDA so up in doctors shit. (other than it might put orthopedic surgeons outta business)

[bobblehead]

I want to add one more thing as long as I brought up ray kurzweil, he also has predicted that solar will surpass every other energy source (except nuclear) on a cost/productivity basis within 5 years, and within 7 america will get all its enegy needs from solar.....this should make the greens ecstatic. Since I have followed the guy for 9 years now, and I have great faith in him, I hope he is right, even though this one made my eyes pop open.

edit...it will be better in cost in 5 years, and all the EARTHS energy needs will be met by solar in 20 years.

He just did an interview last night that I would like to link, but it hasn't hit youtube yet.

You also brought up aids drugs or something earlier and he makes a point about those drugs costing something like 1/20th of what they did when they came out. This is my vision for the world, the few people in the world who are truly gifted making it better for everyone....but they can't do it if we stand in their way.

[Freak Out]

Dubya is a failure and if Congress wasn't such a pathetic group and the American people weren't so complacent he would have been thrown out of office long ago.

[Partial]

I think its funny how everyone blames Congress for sucking and claims that the president is pretty much just a title yet they consistently claim how much Bush sucks.

If he sucks so much, take some accountability and do something about it. Unless you're proactive, I think you suck.

[bobblehead]

Dubya is a failure and if Congress wasn't such a pathetic group and the American people weren't so complacent he would have been thrown out of office long ago.

I'm not a GW fan, but he is only a failure depending on what topic we are talking about, and your political ideology.

War... Rid the taliban, doing ok in iraq, has put some serious pressure on Iran. But...botched the midgame in iraq, you might argue we shouldn't have gone in (I don't), and we spent way too much money nation building without requiring iraq to pay for it.

Economy...Created a new entitlement program, expanded gov't spending and increased debt and deficit. but, unprecedented growth, stock market had a record run, 7 of 8 years all economic indicators were good despite taking over a recession and 9/11 hit to the economy.

Judges....Harriet Myers mess, but if you are a conservative you gotta like the rest, if your not, you hate it.

Immigration...did nothing to stop the flow, actually did things to increase it and his only answer was an amnesty bill, but...ok, no but here, either your an open border proponent or your not.

[hoosier]

I'm not a GW fan, but he is only a failure depending on what topic we are talking about, and your political ideology.

War... Rid the taliban,

For a little while, maybe, but you're not seriously trying to argue that Dubya's Afghanistan policy could be called a success, are you??


doing ok in iraq, has put some serious pressure on Iran. But...botched the midgame in iraq, you might argue we shouldn't have gone in (I don't), and we spent way too much money nation building without requiring iraq to pay for it..

Oh yeah, that little detail you call the "midgame." What about the abject failure to think realistically, from the very beginning planning stages, what it would take to rebuild Iraqui infrastructure and help ensure social stability? That was a complete failure.


Economy...Created a new entitlement program, expanded gov't spending and increased debt and deficit. but, unprecedented growth, stock market had a record run, 7 of 8 years all economic indicators were good despite taking over a recession and 9/11 hit to the economy.

Unprecedented economic growth? What figures have you found to support that notion? Real GDP growth rates under Dubya have been very mediocre compared with JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Clinton and Carter administrations. On a par with Nixon. Only Bush I is worse. So at least he beat his Daddy in something. :lol: If you're going to talk about economic growth, I think you also have to talk about income distribution. What has happened to the gap between very rich and poor in the US under Dubya?

[texaspackerbacker]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.

[hoosier]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.

Your "where are the specifics" shtick has gotten very very old. I already offered a few specifics on why Dubya's Presidency blows--extremely mediocre GDP growth, poor planning in Iraq, failure to complete tasks in Afghanistan--and you either ignore them or find some way to dismiss them. That's how you operate, and it leaves your "opponents" with very little incentive to continue "debating" you.

[Freak Out]

I think its funny how everyone blames Congress for sucking and claims that the president is pretty much just a title yet they consistently claim how much Bush sucks.

If he sucks so much, take some accountability and do something about it. Unless you're proactive, I think you suck.

Fuck you....I've been trying for what seems like an eternity. Have you ever contacted your congressional delegation about anything? I use the process and the means at my disposal to do all I can. I email, call and try and meet them when they come back to Alaska and I never miss a vote. I work locally to try and get the people I want to run and into office. I've done just about everything but take up arms.

Congress has failed in their sworn duty and thats all there is to it.

[Freak Out]

Oh ya.....I forgot to say I have plenty of money and am happy! :lol:

[MJZiggy]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that what the sick America-hating leftist media have been saying might happen to be reported because it has truth to it? Every single thing you ever hear out of the media can't possibly be wrong or they'd have no credibility with anyone. Maybe they actually kind of like America and are trying to report what they learn.

[bobblehead]

I'm not a GW fan, but he is only a failure depending on what topic we are talking about, and your political ideology.

War... Rid the taliban,

For a little while, maybe, but you're not seriously trying to argue that Dubya's Afghanistan policy could be called a success, are you??


doing ok in iraq, has put some serious pressure on Iran. But...botched the midgame in iraq, you might argue we shouldn't have gone in (I don't), and we spent way too much money nation building without requiring iraq to pay for it..

Oh yeah, that little detail you call the "midgame." What about the abject failure to think realistically, from the very beginning planning stages, what it would take to rebuild Iraqui infrastructure and help ensure social stability? That was a complete failure.


Economy...Created a new entitlement program, expanded gov't spending and increased debt and deficit. but, unprecedented growth, stock market had a record run, 7 of 8 years all economic indicators were good despite taking over a recession and 9/11 hit to the economy.

Unprecedented economic growth? What figures have you found to support that notion? Real GDP growth rates under Dubya have been very mediocre compared with JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Clinton and Carter administrations. On a par with Nixon. Only Bush I is worse. So at least he beat his Daddy in something. :lol: If you're going to talk about economic growth, I think you also have to talk about income distribution. What has happened to the gap between very rich and poor in the US under Dubya?

1) Yes I do.
2)That is exactly what I have said in every post I have made on the war, thank you for repeating my words.
3)I addressed income distribution in another post where I pointed out that as a % poor people improved more under bush than rich did. As for unprecedented growth, he took over a recession, add in 9/11, had .8% GDP growth in '01, and then went to 1.6, 2.5, 3.9 before tailing off a bit to 3.2, all the while the cost of oil (which our economy is dependant on) was skyrocketing. Thats not all bad.

Look, I pointed to bush's successes AND failures, and you basically got a mocking tone, and dismissed what I called his successes. In your eyes he is a complete abject failure in everything he did by the sounds of it, and I can't take you seriously when you sound like that.

If you can offer up an economic model where the standard of living of everyone increases every year, and the gap between rich and poor doesn't move at all I'd be willing to listen. Its a tired arguement that plays to the ignorant and incites class warfare. The capitalist model is responsible for most great advances the world has seen and raised the bar on life for the entire world...and you wanna be upset because bill gates got rich while helping make this conversation between us possible.

[hoosier]

I addressed income distribution in another post where I pointed out that as a % poor people improved more under bush than rich did.

I must have missed where you posted about this, but it's still not really clear what you're trying to say--what do you mean that "as a percentage poor people improved more than rich under Dubya"??? There are many ways of measuring income and wealth disparity, and I'm not aware of ANY metric that would refute the claim that income disparity has GROWN under Dubya instead of declining. In other words, the very rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or have grown in numbers.

To be fair, it should be noted that the disparity between rich and poor has been increasing for more than two decades, and is surely a reflection of societal trends that go much deeper than just economic policies set by Congresses and Presidents. The transformation of the US economy from industrial to service and financial speculation clearly favors certain sectors more than others, and that isn't Bush's fault, or Clinton's, or Reagan's.

But each of those presidents CAN and HAS played a role in how government responds to such societal trends. And Bush's response--in teh form of tax cuts that favor investors--IMO clearly contributes to the growing disparity.

You imply that there is no economic model that can guarantee that disparities won't increase, and that may be true, but I'm not quite sure what conclusions you are suggesting that we draw from that claim. Do you think we should just accept growing income disparity and a shrinking middle class without taking any responsibility for trying to change the situation because we now know there is no perfect system? Why do you feel that talking about income disparity is equivalent to class warfare? (Admittedly I'm paraphrasing you here, feel free to correct me if you think I'm summarizing your position unfairly.)

[bobblehead]

In other words, the very rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or have grown in numbers.



Nothing could be further from the truth, by any measure imagineable the poor are infinately more rich than they were in the past, as a matter of fact, by most measures todays poor are richer than the rich of the past. This is why I call this class warfare bullshit (I hope you don't take that as disrespectul, it sounds as such in type, but if you could hear my voice you wouldn't be offended) The only reason for such a statement is class envy, as the poor have it better than at any time in history.

My mother grew up shitting in an outhouse. I grew up with 3 channels. Microwaves? Radio stations? Wealth isn't a static thing that only the rich are accruing at the expense of the poor, everyone from a street sweeper to the CEO of exxon is gaining wealth. I have a friend who is borderline "poverty"(by gov't definition) who has a computer and 50" TV.




You imply that there is no economic model that can guarantee that disparities won't increase,

I'll take full credit for implying this (sort of). In any societal model where there is incentive to create/produce there will be a widening gap between rich and "poor". Sure, we could be socialist and the gap would be nil, and we would never move forward. Only through reward for achievement can EVERYONE move forward. All this means in real terms is that as the rich get "filthy rich" things that the poor could never afford anyway go up in cost....things like oceanview houses, high end cars, penthouse sweets. Basic costs for normal needs remain relatively low and as a percentage of earnings are actually going down as compared to the past (because of the economic incentive to bring them down)

[hoosier]

Nothing could be further from the truth, by any measure imagineable the poor are infinately more rich than they were in the past , as a matter of fact, by most measures todays poor are richer than the rich of the past. This is why I call this class warfare bullshit (I hope you don't take that as disrespectul, it sounds as such in type, but if you could hear my voice you wouldn't be offended) The only reason for such a statement is class envy, as the poor have it better than at any time in history


What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. :lol: ) Poor is poor, and it makes no sense to say that the poor are "richer" today than in the past. Poverty is a measure of your inability to buy basic necessities. What would it mean to say that someone who doesn't earn enough money to feed a family of three is "richer" today than someone in the same situation thirty years ago?

Instead of relying on anecdotes about poor friends who can afford to buy plasma TVs, let's try a slightly more scientific approach. According to US Dept of Labor, the income disparity in the US as measured by the Gini coefficient has been rising steadily since the 1960's, and at its present rate of increase by 2045 the US will have matched the income disparity of Mexico in 2000. By that standard, if the projection were accurate, the US would have become a third world country.

[oregonpackfan]

Not only is the disparity between the rich and poor increasing but the number of Americans who represent the middle class is shrinking as well. Read Thom Hartmann's book Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class.

Here is a review of his book:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Reviews/Screwed-Hartmann.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. :lol: )

I find myself saying this constantly to Bobblehead & Tex.

I think many conservatives are very narrow in what they will read or listen to. But maybe they think I am the same way.

[texaspackerbacker]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that what the sick America-hating leftist media have been saying might happen to be reported because it has truth to it? Every single thing you ever hear out of the media can't possibly be wrong or they'd have no credibility with anyone. Maybe they actually kind of like America and are trying to report what they learn.

Perhaps you would like to point out sonme of that "truth"--but, I say again, you won't because you can't. It doesn't exist.

[texaspackerbacker]

Nothing could be further from the truth, by any measure imagineable the poor are infinately more rich than they were in the past , as a matter of fact, by most measures todays poor are richer than the rich of the past. This is why I call this class warfare bullshit (I hope you don't take that as disrespectul, it sounds as such in type, but if you could hear my voice you wouldn't be offended) The only reason for such a statement is class envy, as the poor have it better than at any time in history


What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. :lol: ) Poor is poor, and it makes no sense to say that the poor are "richer" today than in the past. Poverty is a measure of your inability to buy basic necessities. What would it mean to say that someone who doesn't earn enough money to feed a family of three is "richer" today than someone in the same situation thirty years ago?

Instead of relying on anecdotes about poor friends who can afford to buy plasma TVs, let's try a slightly more scientific approach. According to US Dept of Labor, the income disparity in the US as measured by the Gini coefficient has been rising steadily since the 1960's, and at its present rate of increase by 2045 the US will have matched the income disparity of Mexico in 2000. By that standard, if the projection were accurate, the US would have become a third world country.

Who in this country today does not have hte "ability to buy the basic necessities"? That's as good a definition of being poor as any. I'll give you credit for that. As Bobblehead said, lifestyles of the poor and unfamous improved more than those of the rich in the Bush years. I'll go that one better, though. There simply aren't more than a handfull of "poor"--by that definition in the whole country, and haven't been since well before Bush. Other than a few street people--homeless--usually certifiable crazies who get off their meds, there simply ARE NO people in this country who are "incapable of buying the basic necessities".

The bottom line of all these leftist complaints is CLASS ENVY--either genuine or just demagoguery, it depends on the liberal. There whole agenda is based on punishing the achievers--the winners in the American system. It simply means less to them for lower income people to have adequate lives than it does to prevent others from enjoying great lives.

[bobblehead]

Nothing could be further from the truth, by any measure imagineable the poor are infinately more rich than they were in the past , as a matter of fact, by most measures todays poor are richer than the rich of the past. This is why I call this class warfare bullshit (I hope you don't take that as disrespectul, it sounds as such in type, but if you could hear my voice you wouldn't be offended) The only reason for such a statement is class envy, as the poor have it better than at any time in history


What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. :lol: ) Poor is poor, and it makes no sense to say that the poor are "richer" today than in the past. Poverty is a measure of your inability to buy basic necessities. What would it mean to say that someone who doesn't earn enough money to feed a family of three is "richer" today than someone in the same situation thirty years ago?

Instead of relying on anecdotes about poor friends who can afford to buy plasma TVs, let's try a slightly more scientific approach. According to US Dept of Labor, the income disparity in the US as measured by the Gini coefficient has been rising steadily since the 1960's, and at its present rate of increase by 2045 the US will have matched the income disparity of Mexico in 2000. By that standard, if the projection were accurate, the US would have become a third world country.

I guess my fantasy world is called america. You seem to miss my whole point. The standard of living in this country improves every single year. When my mother was a child they had an outhouse. Most every american has indoor plumbing now. They didn't have TV, most every american has cable now. They rode a buggy, most every american has a car now (or bus access minimum). Your point on income disparity does nothing to disprove my arguement....I swear you didn't even read it. How can you possibly say the poor aren't richer than the past. Any american can walk into an emergency room and get care, when my mom was young if you got a hand caught in the bailer they tied it off and waited hours for doc martin to come.

Penicilin, Ibuprofen, Claritin, none of these were around years ago, now they are affordable by nearly every american. Yes my friend, my fantasyland is called the USA, what is yours called?

[bobblehead]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. :lol: )

I find myself saying this constantly to Bobblehead & Tex.

I think many conservatives are very narrow in what they will read or listen to. But maybe they think I am the same way.

Incidentally tex is closer to you than me.

Here, in case you all missed it I'll copy/paste my "income disparity" point.
=========================================

In any societal model where there is incentive to create/produce there will be a widening gap between rich and "poor". Sure, we could be socialist and the gap would be nil, and we would never move forward. Only through reward for achievement can EVERYONE move forward. All this means in real terms is that as the rich get "filthy rich" things that the poor could never afford anyway go up in cost....things like oceanview houses, high end cars, penthouse sweets. Basic costs for normal needs remain relatively low and as a percentage of earnings are actually going down as compared to the past (because of the economic incentive to bring them down)

[hoosier]

In any societal model where there is incentive to create/produce there will be a widening gap between rich and "poor". Sure, we could be socialist and the gap would be nil, and we would never move forward. Only through reward for achievement can EVERYONE move forward. All this means in real terms is that as the rich get "filthy rich" things that the poor could never afford anyway go up in cost....things like oceanview houses, high end cars, penthouse sweets. Basic costs for normal needs remain relatively low and as a percentage of earnings are actually going down as compared to the past (because of the economic incentive to bring them down)

Bobblehead, you are misinformed and just plain wrong about this. Inflation has been increasing more rapidly than middle-class wages in this country for more than two decades. CEO salaries, of course, are a different story.

You seem to think that there are only two possible models: a "socialist" one in which there are no income disparities (such a model has of course never existed in reality) or the one we have had in the US for the last three decades in which wealth is increasingly concentrated among the rich. Your refusal or inability to consider a more complex array of choices is very limiting for conversation.

[bobblehead]

I am simply not wrong, I have pointed out more examples of goods that are available to all classes now that didn't even exist in the past than I can count. You are trying to say that because the tv of today is 60" and the past was 24" and the cost comparison is that the 60" is a bit more that the cost of living has gone up. Lately we are having a little bit more of a problem because oil is skyrocketing due to global demand and that is causing inflation on the low end (this I agree with, but it is a very recent problem).

Overall, affordability of basic needs is getting easier and easier, you are simply raising the bar on basic needs to try and claim its getting more expensive. And I am very open to other models, please present one and I will be happy to consider/discuss it.

[hoosier]

I am simply not wrong, I have pointed out more examples of goods that are available to all classes now that didn't even exist in the past than I can count. You are trying to say that because the tv of today is 60" and the past was 24" and the cost comparison is that the 60" is a bit more that the cost of living has gone up. Lately we are having a little bit more of a problem because oil is skyrocketing due to global demand and that is causing inflation on the low end (this I agree with, but it is a very recent problem).

Overall, affordability of basic needs is getting easier and easier, you are simply raising the bar on basic needs to try and claim its getting more expensive. And I am very open to other models, please present one and I will be happy to consider/discuss it.

You are consistently confusing income disparity and poverty with technological advances. The measuring of poverty has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the level of technological advancement of a given society. You can have a technologically primitive society with very little income discrepancy and little poverty, and you can have a technologically advanced society with vast disparities and high levels of poverty. And sometimes poor people go out and buy plasma TVs too.

Your claim that basic needs are becoming more and more affordable (presumably you mean for those in lower income brackets) is simply wrong. Take a few minutes to compare inflation and middle class wage increases in this country over the past three decades. You'll see that the price of milk has increased far more than wages. That means that basic necessities are becoming MORE EXPENSIVE for middle and lower class families.

[bobblehead]

I'm not making any such confusion. I readily admit income disparity, but I reject it has anything to do with poverty. The left continually tries to redefine rich/poor and middle class and poverty.

According to the SHCIPP bill you are "poor" if you make 54k a year. According the tax rebate you are "rich" if you earn over 75K a year, not a lot of room for a middle class when you define it that way.

I am telling you that meeting basic needs is easier today than it ever was, but our definition of basic needs is changing. Food, Shelter. Not many people who actually want to acheive these things don't. I could add a lot to that list that almost every american can afford, but those are the two essential needs.

I disagree that you can have a technological primitive society with little poverty...it just ain't so. Our "poor" would be rich by standards in many many cultures. You are saying because our rich are getting filthy rich by definition our poor are getting poorer, I reject that. I go further by saying I'm not aware of any system that can close that gap without stifeling technological innovation and will to create, if you are, I'm all for listening.

Your, and the lefts, definition of poverty is the lowest income brackets. By that very definition there will always be poverty. My definition of poverty is people dying from disease, unable to get nutrition and clean water. By my definition we have done a good job(not perfect) of stamping out poverty.

Again, if you want to close the income gap, I'm all for hearing solutions. I'm not aware of one, that doesn't basically leave the poor where they are at while hurting the rich, maybe you are, but you haven't stated one.

One more thing, milk is a very bad example, the gov't has its regulatory and subsidizing hands all over that industry. And gas is another bad example, as gov't has done everything it can to stifle adding to the supply of something where the global demand is increasing. I agree that in the last 2 years the middle/lower class is getting squeezed by high oil that is bleeding into everything else since our economy is energy based, but again, that is recent, not historical. Historically gas has come down in terms of affordability, as has most basic food essentials. Housing has gone up more recently, but historically it was stable with inflation. Only when the gov't wanted every american to afford a house so they loosened lending standards thru gov't programs (thus forcing other lenders to compete) did we have an artificial boom. Incidentally the people hurt most by the housing bust were the lenders, or the rich as the left would say. In some cases others were hurt, people who got into their first home at the height of that market, especially if they put anything down (most didn't) who now have trashed credit.

[Scott Campbell]

And sometimes poor people go out and buy plasma TVs too.


Huh?

[Scott Campbell]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. :lol: )

I find myself saying this constantly to Bobblehead & Tex.

I think many conservatives are very narrow in what they will read or listen to. But maybe they think I am the same way.



I imagine it does appear like a fantasy world to some. Many others are able to make it a reality through smarts and/or hard work. I've heard lots of excuses why the poor can't compete, but I just don't buy it. For most it's not that they can't compete, it's that they won't compete. I believe that poverty for most is a choice that could have been avoided. Are there unfortunate sob stories out there that are the exception - sure. Absolutely. But I believe that most of the poor are simply economic underachievers. Their stories are primarily ones of unfulfilled potential.

I don't believe we should encourage and enable underachieving by subsidizing sub par performance with bloated government entitlement programs organized by inept social tinkering DoGooders crying "it's not fair", "it's not their fault", "the fat cats are screwing the little guy"...blah, blah, blah. These people seem to lose sight of making things better in lieu of an unrealistic goal of fairness.

Well life ain't fair.

[MJZiggy]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that what the sick America-hating leftist media have been saying might happen to be reported because it has truth to it? Every single thing you ever hear out of the media can't possibly be wrong or they'd have no credibility with anyone. Maybe they actually kind of like America and are trying to report what they learn.

Perhaps you would like to point out sonme of that "truth"--but, I say again, you won't because you can't. It doesn't exist.

How can you say it's not true without doing their interviews talking to the people that they know and doing their research. Did the AF not just fire two officers for nuclear screw ups? I'm betting that story was accurate.

I've read tons of articles that pertain to things I'm working on and most of it is pretty accurate. On the other hand, there was a simple story about a pair of loose dogs that killed a cat I had that had several mistakes. What I'm saying is that while it ain't perfect, they have better access to what's going on than you do. It's their job to report the news. As in what was said and done by who and to whom. I don't think they're all sitting around the newsroom during the day trying to figure out how o be as biased as possible because they'd lose all creibility (and circulation).

[Scott Campbell]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that what the sick America-hating leftist media have been saying might happen to be reported because it has truth to it? Every single thing you ever hear out of the media can't possibly be wrong or they'd have no credibility with anyone. Maybe they actually kind of like America and are trying to report what they learn.

Perhaps you would like to point out sonme of that "truth"--but, I say again, you won't because you can't. It doesn't exist.

How can you say it's not true without doing their interviews talking to the people that they know and doing their research. Did the AF not just fire two officers for nuclear screw ups? I'm betting that story was accurate.

I've read tons of articles that pertain to things I'm working on and most of it is pretty accurate. On the other hand, there was a simple story about a pair of loose dogs that killed a cat I had that had several mistakes. What I'm saying is that while it ain't perfect, they have better access to what's going on than you do. It's their job to report the news. As in what was said and done by who and to whom. I don't think they're all sitting around the newsroom during the day trying to figure out how o be as biased as possible because they'd lose all creibility (and circulation).


I've seen plenty of biased news reporting - slanted both ways. Check out Fox if you'd like yours sprinkled with a heavy dose of the conservative agenda.

[hoosier]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. :lol: )

I find myself saying this constantly to Bobblehead & Tex.

I think many conservatives are very narrow in what they will read or listen to. But maybe they think I am the same way.



I imagine it does appear like a fantasy world to some. Many others are able to make it a reality through smarts and/or hard work. I've heard lots of excuses why the poor can't compete, but I just don't buy it. For most it's not that they can't compete, it's that they won't compete. I believe that poverty for most is a choice that could have been avoided. Are there unfortunate sob stories out there that are the exception - sure. Absolutely. But I believe that most of the poor are simply economic underachievers. Their stories are primarily ones of unfulfilled potential.

I don't believe we should encourage and enable underachieving by subsidizing sub par performance with bloated government entitlement programs organized by inept social tinkering DoGooders crying "it's not fair", "it's not their fault", "the fat cats are screwing the little guy"...blah, blah, blah. These people seem to lose sight of making things better in lieu of an unrealistic goal of fairness.

Well life ain't fair.

Kind of like the homeless and the ununsured, huh? Some people just want to live that way.... :roll:

[Scott Campbell]

Kind of like the homeless and the ununsured, huh? Some people just want to live that way.... :roll:


Leave the sarcasm to the pros junior.

[bobblehead]

Kind of like the homeless and the ununsured, huh? Some people just want to live that way.... :roll:

The liberals passed laws so that we couldn't commit people who weren't "right" against their will....even though being pretty messed up in the head renders them incapable of doing whats in their best interests. This is a heavy percentage of the homeless.

As for the uninsured, again, over-regulation, the HMO tinkering, these things have been messing with the system since 1973 and the uninsured and the cost of medicine has been rising every since. Ted Kennedy has been tweaking his version of medicine for 35 years, and what does he do when he gets sick....he sure as hell doesn't go to an HMO approved doctor in the system he helped create.

Our health care system is a mess because they(kennedy more than any other) can't keep their hands off of it. I really don't want them to take the final step, but I guess it really doesn't matter much at this point, we common sense conservatives have lost the debate. Each step they take moves us closer to socialized medicine and we haven't even stopped that muchless turned it back in the right direction.

Its humerous though really that they mess it up and then use the excuse that its messed up to get more involved thus messing it up more and over and over, and very few people will stand up and say "for christ's sake keep your hands off the medical industry"

[the_idle_threat]

There are many ways of measuring income and wealth disparity, and I'm not aware of ANY metric that would refute the claim that income disparity has GROWN under Dubya instead of declining. In other words, the very rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or have grown in numbers.

Your logic is faulty. Even if the income disparity between rich and poor has grown, that does NOT mean the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or more numerous.

Let's take an example. Say a poor person makes $20K per year, and a rich person makes $100K per year. If BOTH incomes increase by the same percentage, let's say 10%, then the poor person is now earning $22K and the rich person $110K.

HOLY SHIT... the DISPARITY between rich and poor is growing! It was a difference of $80K before, and now it's $88K! And yet both the "rich" and "poor" got richer.

"Poor" wages have to increase at a much higher rate than "rich" wages in order for the disparity to even stay the same, much less narrow. Since this is unlikely to happen, the gap will continue to widen in positive economic times no matter what we do. The only cure would be to avoid positive economic times. And, of course, the gap will narrow in poor times, since a decrease will drop higher earners more than lower earners, who have less room for adjustment, and also have minimum wage serving as a wage floor.

And my bottom line all along has been, so what if this happens?

I've not heard an argument yet why the income gap even matters. If we want to focus on things like unemployment numbers or amount of people using social services like food stamps and food pantries, then we're looking at indicators of poverty. The income gap between highest and lowest earners does not measure poverty. Poverty is not defined as how much I have versus how much you have---it's whether I have enough to meet my basic needs. What you have is irrelevant.

[bobblehead]

Idle did you copy part of my post from the other thread, or basically cut and paste a bunch of my posts :) You could be my long lost sibling.

Take it a step further, if 20K goes up 10% and 100k goes up 5% the disparity widens, but in fact the 20k actually increased more, not in real dollars but in % it did. It would have to be more like 10% vs. 2% to stay the same and that just isn't going to happen. If both workers are helping their employees make money, odds are the 100k employee had more of an impact on his employer, so I ask...who is gonna get a bigger raise in real dollars?

Anyway, I respect the lefts point of view, they are more interested in equality of outcome than they are in progressing the world, that is a valid thing to want, but to say I want that, and an increasing standard of living...it just ain't gonna happen. I want to see our best thinkers....the few who can make this world better get rewarded for doing things like providing clean water for every person in africa. I don't want to see a world where we all live in parity at a level much lower than it could be if we just unhandcuff the few who make it better. The bill gates, steve jobs, dean kamens, ray kurzweil, robert freitas. These are the great minds of our times, now get the hell out of the way and let them make our lives easier.

[Scott Campbell]

I've not heard an argument yet why the income gap even matters.


They seem to find it very useful as a divisionary tactic, or when pandering to the poor.

[Scott Campbell]

Brazenly stolen without permission from RG:


Bar Stool Economics -->-->-->

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings."I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!""Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

[Partial]

My dad forwarded me an email the other day about we as workers have to take drug tests to have a job and earn our income, yet you do not need to take one to receive welfare, unemployment, foodstamps, etc.

How many people wouldn't be able to collect an unemployment check if they did a weekly piss test? I'd guess that number cuts in half at least.

[MJZiggy]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

[Partial]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

They will get back on their feet just fine. I'm talking about the thugs and people who waste all of our tax dollars.

[bobblehead]

Incidentally the only flaw with the shamelessly stolen post is that in our tax system when the bar owner cut the bill, the four would have instantly started screaming, and split the 20 between them, thuse getting paid $5 to sit and drink....its called the earned income drinking credit....er I mean the earned income tax credit. The remaining 6 would have continued to drink for the exact same price.

[MJZiggy]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

They will get back on their feet just fine. I'm talking about the thugs and people who waste all of our tax dollars.

Thugs as a general rule don't get unemployment. You have to work to earn it and there is a time and dollar limit as to how much you get when you lose your job. It's intent is to tide you over until you find something else.

[Partial]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

They will get back on their feet just fine. I'm talking about the thugs and people who waste all of our tax dollars.

Thugs as a general rule don't get unemployment. You have to work to earn it and there is a time and dollar limit as to how much you get when you lose your job. It's intent is to tide you over until you find something else.

No shit. Fine, lets talk about Welfare then.

[GBRulz]

How many people wouldn't be able to collect an unemployment check if they did a weekly piss test? I'd guess that number cuts in half at least.

How many working people would be out of a job if all companies required weekly drug testing? While I see what you're having the problem with, which is welfare recipients collecting a check as a way of life, it's not right to lump in only the non-working in this category.

[MJZiggy]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

They will get back on their feet just fine. I'm talking about the thugs and people who waste all of our tax dollars.

Thugs as a general rule don't get unemployment. You have to work to earn it and there is a time and dollar limit as to how much you get when you lose your job. It's intent is to tide you over until you find something else.

No shit. Fine, lets talk about Welfare then.

Exactly how much straight "give me a check" welfare do you think is out there? And yes, since you're the one who brought it up with a strong opinion attached to it, you're the one to go look it up before complaining about it more...

[bobblehead]

26 million people a month get food stamps which by any name is gimme a check welfare. I think a healthy share of them get that year after year. I don't think a drug test would be outta line.

[hoosier]

There are many ways of measuring income and wealth disparity, and I'm not aware of ANY metric that would refute the claim that income disparity has GROWN under Dubya instead of declining. In other words, the very rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or have grown in numbers.

Your logic is faulty. Even if the income disparity between rich and poor has grown, that does NOT mean the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or more numerous.

Let's take an example. Say a poor person makes $20K per year, and a rich person makes $100K per year. If BOTH incomes increase by the same percentage, let's say 10%, then the poor person is now earning $22K and the rich person $110K.

HOLY SHIT... the DISPARITY between rich and poor is growing! It was a difference of $80K before, and now it's $88K! And yet both the "rich" and "poor" got richer.

"Poor" wages have to increase at a much higher rate than "rich" wages in order for the disparity to even stay the same, much less narrow. Since this is unlikely to happen, the gap will continue to widen in positive economic times no matter what we do. The only cure would be to avoid positive economic times. And, of course, the gap will narrow in poor times, since a decrease will drop higher earners more than lower earners, who have less room for adjustment, and also have minimum wage serving as a wage floor.

And my bottom line all along has been, so what if this happens?

I've not heard an argument yet why the income gap even matters. If we want to focus on things like unemployment numbers or amount of people using social services like food stamps and food pantries, then we're looking at indicators of poverty. The income gap between highest and lowest earners does not measure poverty. Poverty is not defined as how much I have versus how much you have---it's whether I have enough to meet my basic needs. What you have is irrelevant.

I agree that income disparity by itself isn't necessarily the best measure of how a given society deals with social and economic differences. But your hypothetical example doesn't come close to reflecting what has been going on in the US. The middle and lower middle classes have not been growing wealthier by the same percentage as the upper classes (as they do in your scenario); on the contrary, these classes have been getting poorer (as measured by the fact that inflation is outpacing wage increases, and thus buy power is dimiishing) whereas the upper classes have seen their wealth and buying power grow tremendously.

I think both issues--income disparity and poverty--are interrelated, but it might be necessary (at least in this forum) to discuss them separately.

[oregonpackfan]

One example of income disparity is reflected by the income of CEO's and the entry level workers of the companies they manage.

In the 1950's, the average CEO earned 7 times the amount the entry level worked earned for his(her) company.

Today, the average CEO earned 430 times the amount of money the entry level earned for his(her) company.(Figures from Thom Hartmann)

[mraynrand]

One example of income disparity is reflected by the income of CEO's and the entry level workers of the companies they manage.

In the 1950's, the average CEO earned 7 times the amount the entry level worked earned for his(her) company.

Today, the average CEO earned 430 times the amount of money the entry level earned for his(her) company.(Figures from Thom Hartmann)

NBA players, NFL players, Singers and entertainers all earn a hell of a lot more than they ever did too. One of the reasons CEOs earn so damn much is that there is an intense competition for CEOs who can increase the value of a company. What is a CEO who can increase the value of a company by several billion dollars worth? Keep in mind that the increase in the company value translates into stocks and mutual funds owned by millions of people who have invested in the hopes of using such growth to fund their retirements and school for their children/grandchildren. What is that worth?

[mraynrand]

Exactly how much straight "give me a check" welfare do you think is out there? And yes, since you're the one who brought it up with a strong opinion attached to it, you're the one to go look it up before complaining about it more...

foodstamps alone are at over 30 billion/year and are estimated to go over 40 billion in the next several years, in part due to successful advertisement by the government for the availability of such programs.

[bobblehead]

One example of income disparity is reflected by the income of CEO's and the entry level workers of the companies they manage.

In the 1950's, the average CEO earned 7 times the amount the entry level worked earned for his(her) company.

Today, the average CEO earned 430 times the amount of money the entry level earned for his(her) company.(Figures from Thom Hartmann)

How much net sales, employees, regulatory laws, ect did a CEO in the 50's oversee compared to today. The job is not the same, and if not for the rise of the corporation (due to overregulation) small business owners would still be more common and prevalent and making about 7 times the amount of the employees.

Another point, what is the solution. Should we take the money away from all the rich and redistribute it evenly throughout the USA, why not the third world countries, those people are much worse off. You think if we took 30 trillion from the billionaires of the country it would solve all the ills? It would have an inflationary effect on most middle income luxury items, I'll grant you that.

And I reject Hoosier saying the poor are getting poorer. Inflation is measured against a lot of things that aren't necesseties. We also keep redefining poor. By your definition there will always be poor.

Again, even if I accept your premise, the ONLY solution reasonable is to stress the labor force (supply) so that those in demand will pay more for it. A good place to start would be removing undocumented workers from the workforce......Boy I almost can't wait for the response to that statement. A better way would be to furhter reduce capital gains taxes and corporate income taxes stimulating investment in growht and jobs.

[GrnBay007]

Exactly how much straight "give me a check" welfare do you think is out there? And yes, since you're the one who brought it up with a strong opinion attached to it, you're the one to go look it up before complaining about it more...

foodstamps alone are at over 30 billion/year and are estimated to go over 40 billion in the next several years, in part due to successful advertisement by the government for the availability of such programs.

If foodstamps alone are over 30 billion, I'd hate to see the numbers for what is handed out in housing.

When I think of the "give me a check" welfare recipients I think of those that get either free or greatly reduced housing, a check (for the bills) and food stamps. ...all without having to work.

I do believe there are those out there that meet the guidelines for food stamps that are working, but low end jobs. I wouldn't call those people the "give me a check" people.

[bobblehead]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

[MJZiggy]

I wonder how much that would cost the taxpayers...not unreasonable in idea at all, I just wonder in practice as it means that somehow every month, every recipient would have to be scheduled, tested and have the samples analyzed and results recorded.

[Freak Out]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country.

[bobblehead]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country.

You don't think its in the best interest of a child to find out if the parent is using drugs and then remove the child from that situation??

[hoosier]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country.

You don't think its in the best interest of a child to find out if the parent is using drugs and then remove the child from that situation??

Yeah, dump em all in group homes and foster care. I guess that's where small government stops and Big Government kicks in with you libertarians, huh?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country.

You don't think its in the best interest of a child to find out if the parent is using drugs and then remove the child from that situation??

I totally agree. Poor bush twins...look at how they suffered since their dad was an alcoholic and frequent coke user.

Taking away someone's kids because they smoke some dope....ridiculous.

[bobblehead]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country.

You don't think its in the best interest of a child to find out if the parent is using drugs and then remove the child from that situation??

I totally agree. Poor bush twins...look at how they suffered since their dad was an alcoholic and frequent coke user.

Taking away someone's kids because they smoke some dope....ridiculous.

Yea, your right, silly me to think that we shouldn't just allow people to do whatever they want and have the rest of us pay for it. If you can afford dope, you don't need my money that I make while being drug tested to make it (in fairness I haven't been drug tested for my job in 8 years).

I wouldn't take someones kids away for non narcotic drug use if it wasn't affecting their homelife. I would take away their food stamps if they have enough money to buy reefer.

[bobblehead]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country.

You don't think its in the best interest of a child to find out if the parent is using drugs and then remove the child from that situation??

Yeah, dump em all in group homes and foster care. I guess that's where small government stops and Big Government kicks in with you libertarians, huh?

Do you guys ever offer a solution, or just try and tear apart others? Don't you even see the point? If you can afford drugs, you don't need handouts, if you use drugs and it is affecting your parenting, you shouldn't be a parent.

Am I really that crazy to ask the people on the recieving end of my money to be drug free? I mean employers are allowed to, and you are actually providing something to them for their money.

You guys talk about welfare and such being temporary and people lifting themselves out of that situation with some gov't help, hey no problem, I'm for that. Do you really think they are helping themselves better their lives while getting drunk/high or whatever?

NO, what many liberal politicians think is, lets have them be worthless degenerates who we can depend on to be bussed to the polls and vote for us over and over while we promise to protect their handouts.

Well, I for one want better than that for them, and being on drugs isn't going to give them as a good of a chance at bettering themselves as NOT being on drugs is.

And to answer your original post hoosier, as a libertarian who wants small gov't, I am against someone being perpetually on a handout program, I am for them taking responsibility for their decisions in life. If my programs were in place this discussion wouldn't have to be made, I am addressing the current situation.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country.

You don't think its in the best interest of a child to find out if the parent is using drugs and then remove the child from that situation??

I totally agree. Poor bush twins...look at how they suffered since their dad was an alcoholic and frequent coke user.

Taking away someone's kids because they smoke some dope....ridiculous.

Yea, your right, silly me to think that we shouldn't just allow people to do whatever they want and have the rest of us pay for it. If you can afford dope, you don't need my money that I make while being drug tested to make it (in fairness I haven't been drug tested for my job in 8 years).

I wouldn't take someones kids away for non narcotic drug use if it wasn't affecting their homelife. I would take away their food stamps if they have enough money to buy reefer.

You are switching arguments. Please try to stay on topic.

You statement was based on the welfare of the child...now you are switching.

If your argument is that..then it shouldn't matter how the money that supports the family is derived.

AS for affording dope..c'mon..are you really gonna suggest that poor people who spend 20 bucks or so for dope (but, i guess non narcotics are ok) every 2 weeks or so..are really being spendy? Is it ok if they buy a 40? You are holding people to a ridiculous standard....makes it really easy to deny them. I don't think jesus would be quite so harsh.

[bobblehead]

Actually I didn't switch the arguement, you did. This topic was drug testing for getting gov't benefits, not drug testing for parenting. Someone dropped in and said

"So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country."

Basically implying that I am cruel for wanting kids to starve, so I merely pointed out that I'm not the one being cruel to those kids...their parent is. And if said parent is doing drugs then they shouldn't have the kids.

Yes, it was based on the welfare of the kids IN THE CONTEXT of the entire thread. Its funny that you are tellin me to stay on topic when I wasn't the one to vere into "the poor children" in the first place. If you want to bring the children into the debate, I have to address it, if you want to debate people on drugs getting a handout, that is the point of the thread.

[Zool]

Could you guys consolidate your, whatever the fuck this is, to one thread ala RG and Vince.

[MadtownPacker]

Could you guys consolidate your, whatever the fuck this is, to one thread ala RG and Vince.STFU you thread nazi.

Dont say shit or they will have to make a Mad Rooster vs lil hen Zool thread.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Could you guys consolidate your, whatever the fuck this is, to one thread ala RG and Vince.

Stop crimping my style. This is how i flirt!!

[bobblehead]

Could you guys consolidate your, whatever the fuck this is, to one thread ala RG and Vince.

Never really thought it was bobble v. tyrone, I thought it was my ideas v. his. Anyone else is welcome to chime in at any time agrreing/refuting either of us.

[Deputy Nutz]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

So the kids can go hungry if they fail. What a sweetheart. I'm sure the system needs reform but 30 billion is what is wasted pretty fast in Iraq and your not willing to spend it in your own country.

You don't think its in the best interest of a child to find out if the parent is using drugs and then remove the child from that situation??

I totally agree. Poor bush twins...look at how they suffered since their dad was an alcoholic and frequent coke user.

Taking away someone's kids because they smoke some dope....ridiculous.

Yea, your right, silly me to think that we shouldn't just allow people to do whatever they want and have the rest of us pay for it. If you can afford dope, you don't need my money that I make while being drug tested to make it (in fairness I haven't been drug tested for my job in 8 years).

I wouldn't take someones kids away for non narcotic drug use if it wasn't affecting their homelife. I would take away their food stamps if they have enough money to buy reefer.

You are switching arguments. Please try to stay on topic.

You statement was based on the welfare of the child...now you are switching.

If your argument is that..then it shouldn't matter how the money that supports the family is derived.

AS for affording dope..c'mon..are you really gonna suggest that poor people who spend 20 bucks or so for dope (but, i guess non narcotics are ok) every 2 weeks or so..are really being spendy? Is it ok if they buy a 40? You are holding people to a ridiculous standard....makes it really easy to deny them. I don't think jesus would be quite so harsh.

He is being harsh for good reason, if you are so desperate to take food stamps then you shouldn't have twenty bucks laying around so you can buy a bag of dope, a rock of crack, a couple of cases of beer. I am for food stamps, and state provided health care for families that have children, I don't think it is fair to with hold food from the kids because the parents using drugs. I am sick though of seeing mommy resell her food stamps for say 20 cents on the dollar for a little cash money to spend on drugs, the hair salon, or whatever else besides what the food stamps were meant for, feeding the family.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Could you guys consolidate your, whatever the fuck this is, to one thread ala RG and Vince.

Never really thought it was bobble v. tyrone, I thought it was my ideas v. his. Anyone else is welcome to chime in at any time agrreing/refuting either of us.

What i thought we had something special. You are just a big tease.

Me and Mr.Bobblehead
We got a thing goin'on
We both know that it's wrong
But it's much too strong
To let it go now

[bobblehead]

Look just cuz I did it once when I was young and needed the money doesn't mean I want a relationship.

[Zool]

Could you guys consolidate your, whatever the fuck this is, to one thread ala RG and Vince.STFU you thread nazi.

Dont say shit or they will have to make a Mad Rooster vs lil hen Zool thread.

Look ya cock, you aint wants to be all up in this. It was getting annoying going to 3 seperate threads and reading the same 2 guys banter about nothing.

HEIL MADTOWN!

[Zool]

Could you guys consolidate your, whatever the fuck this is, to one thread ala RG and Vince.

Never really thought it was bobble v. tyrone, I thought it was my ideas v. his. Anyone else is welcome to chime in at any time agrreing/refuting either of us.

What i thought we had something special. You are just a big tease.

Me and Mr.Bobblehead
We got a thing goin'on
We both know that it's wrong
But it's much too strong
To let it go now

Shit now thats stuck in my head.

Mee eee eee and Mrs.....