Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An America with its automotive and financial sectors back on stable ground and with a health care system that actually delivered health care while no longer threatening to break the bank would be a failure? That seems a little off the mark to me....
An America with it's automotive and financial sectors under control of the federal government and a healthcare system that lets government beaurocrats make any sort of healthcare decisions while foisting more and excessive taxes on the American people would be a failure. And it's right where we are headed.
And while I am HAPPY to have to converswation about what is or is not best for America, this was a discussion about how people are twisting and misstating what one radio commentator said. HE BELIEVES that Obama succeedding in his plans is bad for America. He does not, as some would like to make people believe, want America to fail.
An America with its automotive and financial sectors back on stable ground and with a health care system that actually delivered health care while no longer threatening to break the bank would be a failure? That seems a little off the mark to me....
We have that?
I must have been sleeping when all this took place.
An America with it's automotive and financial sectors under control of the federal government and a healthcare system that lets government beaurocrats make any sort of healthcare decisions while foisting more and excessive taxes on the American people would be a failure. And it's right where we are headed.
No, it isn't, and if you'd been paying any attention at all, you'd know that. The auto and financial sectors are on federal life support to prevent their failures on the spot -- failures that would have had crushing impacts on an already struggling economy. As they reorganize into entities capable of making a go of it on their own again, they will return to the private sector.
Would you like to point to any provision at all in current drafts of health care legislation that calls for federal bureaucrats to make health care decisions on your behalf? Are you cognizant of the fact that under the current private sector systems, HMO and other bureaucrats are making health care decisions on your behalf by the thousands every day?
Many right-wingers seem to consider all taxes to be examples of "more and excessive". They apparently believe that we should have no government at all, or that we should have one but not be expected to pay for it. Are you one of those?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
And while I am HAPPY to have to converswation about what is or is not best for America, this was a discussion about how people are twisting and misstating what one radio commentator said. HE BELIEVES that Obama succeedding in his plans is bad for America. He does not, as some would like to make people believe, want America to fail.
The people and policies that Limbaugh has supported over the years have already caused massive failure all across America and beyond. He now encourages that the efforts of those trying to repair that damge should fail. Either he does indeed want America to fail, or he has no freaking idea of what failure actually is or means.
i love america, i love what 4th july stands for independence
independence from-------------
foreign oil
debt
unwanted foreign labor
but we still have slavery
slavery at walmart from forced labor goods from china
slavery on our streets from under age women being sold by cruel slavemasters aka pimps (descendants of slaves)
slavery of illegal immigration winked at by our government 21 million under paid and under housed.
i have a dream
what a sad post lol
u forgot to parenthesis descendants of europeans in one o those, pimps slave masters lmao..hoes know what they getting into when they go into that line of prostitution nice try.
No, it isn't, and if you'd been paying any attention at all, you'd know that. The auto and financial sectors are on federal life support to prevent their failures on the spot -- failures that would have had crushing impacts on an already struggling economy. As they reorganize into entities capable of making a go of it on their own again, they will return to the private sector.
I have been paying attention. And I've seen certain big banks that wanted to return the TARP money be told thay they cannot, that they must wait until the "stress tests" have been completed, to see if they are strong enough to retun that money. I say if they want to return it, let them. If they are too weak to survive, then let capilalism work, and those weak banks fail. But that would be too Ccapitaliat, and the social policy of government support is being favored. And there are many economists who argue that letting the Big Three auto makers in America deal with their financial woes on their own, filing bancruptcy if they must, would have been the better way to go. Like the airline industry, they would reorganize, change the way they do business, be more fiscally responsible. They would continue making cars. Instead we have an industry that is substantially owned & controlled by the US Government and a (many would say corrupt) labor union, and which will not be forced to change the policies that led it into financial distress in the first place, except that now the federal government will have a giant stake to protect, providing more excuses to plow in more money and take more control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Would you like to point to any provision at all in current drafts of health care legislation that calls for federal bureaucrats to make health care decisions on your behalf? Are you cognizant of the fact that under the current private sector systems, HMO and other bureaucrats are making health care decisions on your behalf by the thousands every day?
Being in an HMO that I choose to be in is a great deal diferent that being forced to pay, through my taxes, for a Universal Health care system I don't want. And the provision that my company paid health care benefit be taxed as income is part of one of the more favored drafts of the health care legislation. So we will be forced, or at least coerced, via our income, to accept said government run health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Many right-wingers seem to consider all taxes to be examples of "more and excessive". They apparently believe that we should have no government at all, or that we should have one but not be expected to pay for it. Are you one of those?
I don't consider myself a "right-winger" though I do see myself on the right side of the political spectrum. I think we ought to have smaller government. Especially at the federal level. I do expect to pay for my government. Since I want to keep as much of my income as I can, I want the government to take as little of it as possible, and use it for those things that are rightfully in the purvue of the federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The people and policies that Limbaugh has supported over the years have already caused massive failure all across America and beyond. He now encourages that the efforts of those trying to repair that damge should fail. Either he does indeed want America to fail, or he has no freaking idea of what failure actually is or means.
Show me what you are referring to when you say that the people & policies he suported have ressulted in masive failure. And he does know what failure means. In his eyes, and in mine, the socialism of America is failure. I don't want America to fail. I want America to succeed, to become stronger and better. I believe that a capitalist America is stronger, more productive, and better for ALL it's citizens than a socialist America will be. Therefore, I want it's socialization to fail. Since President Obama appears to be trying to socialize America, I want President Obama to fail.
Last edited by Bill Keegan; 07-05-2009 at 08:43 AM..
Reason: typos
You Limbaugh haters need to stop using this the way you do. It's been discussed a thousand times, and it's very clear that he said he wants Obama to fail at what he is attempting. At taking over private business. At socializing health care. He wants Obama to fail so that America will not.
You right wing enablers of the great radio fraud Limbaugh don't have a clue, but then again, if you actually did have a clue, would you even listen to Limbaugh?
Limbaugh has never done anything with his life but sit his drug addled fat arse behind a microphone and attack others. When he holds an elected office I will give him credibility. But he never will. And anyone that gives him credibility tells you all you need to know about that persons intellect
You right wing enablers of the great radio fraud Limbaugh don't have a clue, but then again, if you actually did have a clue, would you even listen to Limbaugh?
Limbaugh has never done anything with his life but sit his drug addled fat arse behind a microphone and attack others. When he holds an elected office I will give him credibility. But he never will. And anyone that gives him credibility tells you all you need to know about that persons intellect
So only elected officials have any credibility? Ridiculous.
And whomever listens to Linbaugh has no clue? Hmmm. So how does one know Linbaugh is wrong if one doesn't listen to Limbaugh?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to further the conversation. They merely lead to each side trying to point out flaws in theother side that at the end of they day have nothing to do with the argument. Rush may indeed have a fat arse, but does that make what he says about (cocaine addled) President Obama's policies any less valid? So let's talk about the policies shall we?
I have been paying attention. And I've seen certain big banks that wanted to return the TARP money be told thay they cannot, that they must wait until the "stress tests" have been completed, to see if they are strong enough to retun that money. I say if they want to return it, let them. If they are too weak to survive, then let capilalism work, and those weak banks fail. But that would be too Ccapitaliat, and the social policy of government support is being favored.
The most logical approach to the situation was nationalization of the banking system. The current effort -- one undertaken with less than full confidence that it would work -- is an attempt to avoid nationalization. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Many banks are on borrowed time. Time that the government has lent them. They don't call any of the shots in this scenario unless the government has given them the okay to. It is your unfettered capitalism that created this mess, a mess in which the costs of failure are hardly limited to a bank itself and its shareholders. Instead those costs spread out into the broader economy, ultimately taking a far larger toll on just plain ordinary folks not otherwise involved. The government is concerned with the common defense and general welfare of the nation. It is trying to follow the least socialist option that could possibly work towards those ends. If you'd rather, we could always just go the nationalization route right now and be done with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
And there are many economists who argue that letting the Big Three auto makers in America deal with their financial woes on their own, filing bancruptcy if they must, would have been the better way to go. Like the airline industry, they would reorganize, change the way they do business, be more fiscally responsible. They would continue making cars.
No, they would simply have shut down and sought to sell off such assets as they could. A million people would have been thrown out of work all but immediately. Within twelve months , it would have grown to three million. The only way that even the potential to make cars continues is with financial assistance from the government. From bad and worse, you are choosing worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
Instead we have an industry that is substantially owned & controlled by the US Government and a (many would say corrupt) labor union, and which will not be forced to change the policies that led it into financial distress in the first place, except that now the federal government will have a giant stake to protect, providing more excuses to plow in more money and take more control.
The companies will emerge (assuming that they do) not merely with different policies, but as different entities entirely. There is no more Chrysler or GM. Those are gone. Rather than simply vanishing, they are being supported through a process of reorganization and reinvention aimed at turning them into something else that can be economically viable again. If that works -- and it isn't certain that it will -- then a significant objective will have been achieved. Doing nothing had no such potential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
Being in an HMO that I choose to be in is a great deal diferent that being forced to pay, through my taxes, for a Universal Health care system I don't want.
That isn't pointing to any provision in an existing health care proposal that calls for government bureaucrats to make decisions for you, as you claimed to be the case. Nor does it address the fact that the current system allows private sector bureaucrats do just that. I assume you have read enough to know that current proposals seek to force no one who is happy with their current coverage to change. The tax-resistance attitude I will take as no more than additional talk from an I've-got-mine-and screw-the-rest-of-you point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
And the provision that my company paid health care benefit be taxed as income is part of one of the more favored drafts of the health care legislation. So we will be forced, or at least coerced, via our income, to accept said government run health care.
The proposal has not been adopted, and as drafted would apply only to coverage that exceeded approximately 150% of average. In terms of actual revenue collected, it would essentially be a tax only on the super-coverages typically obtained by the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
I don't consider myself a "right-winger" though I do see myself on the right side of the political spectrum. I think we ought to have smaller government. Especially at the federal level. I do expect to pay for my government. Since I want to keep as much of my income as I can, I want the government to take as little of it as possible, and use it for those things that are rightfully in the purvue of the federal government.
Why do you want to keep as much of your income as you can? What convinces you that the utility of some marginal private sector good will in all cases exceed the utilty of the marginal public sector good that could be obtained in exchange? Do you even think about such questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
Show me what you are referring to when you say that the people & policies he suported have ressulted in masive failure. And he does know what failure means. In his eyes, and in mine, the socialism of America is failure.
What was Limbaugh's attitude on the needless and wasteful spending for the Iraq Invasion? What was his attitude toward tax cuts for the rich and mega-corporations? What was his attitude on shifting more and more from productivity gains into corporate profits and less and less into supposedly inflationary wage gains? What was his attitude toward clamping down on financial markets and bringing derivatives markets under any regulation at all? What did he say in response to suggestions that when interest rates inevitably began to rise from the low levels imposed due to the failure of tax cuts for the rich to generate any new economic activity at all, there would be increasing levels of mortgage defaults arising in subprime markets where unregulated brokers had been pushing massive amounts of high-cost loans onto people of questionable means merely so that Wall Street investment banks could earn fabulous profits and award themselves gigantic bonuses? What were his attitudes on any of these issues? I'll tell you. He was cheerleading for all of the very laissez-faire policies that opened to door to calamity and then walked us straight through it. The man is a worthless shill and partisan hack. The socialism that he and you join in fearing is a bogeyman. The damage that has lately been done through the agency of his and your heroes is by contrast very real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
I don't want America to fail. I want America to succeed, to become stronger and better. I believe that a capitalist America is stronger, more productive, and better for ALL it's citizens than a socialist America will be. Therefore, I want it's socialization to fail. Since President Obama appears to be trying to socialize America, I want President Obama to fail.
Open your eyes sometime and take a look around. Believing in something does not make it real. There is not a good track record behind relying on Dumbo's feather or Tinkerbell's pixie dust to carry a nation along. Placing faith in Magical Capitalism is no different in this regard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
