Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 so let me see if I get your philosophy is don't complain......that fixes nothing.....sometimes complaining or your word bitching will energize people to become involved To a certain extent I agree, on this subject no... better to complain and raise hands about something that CAN be changed...hell if I complained about everything after it had happened I'd become a crotchetty old wind bag....I always get amused about all the Obama bashing too....like its gonna change anything....maybe in a few years.....my philosophy may be different to yours Nap, but all the constant moaning bitching whining and conspiracy crap has gotten old....a majority of people are miserable and half cup full types....with me it falls on deaf ears 90% of the time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 To a certain extent I agree, on this subject no... better to complain and raise hands about something that CAN be changed...hell if I complained about everything after it had happened I'd become a crotchetty old wind bag....I always get amused about all the Obama bashing too....like its gonna change anything....maybe in a few years.....my philosophy may be different to yours Nap, but all the constant moaning bitching whining and conspiracy crap has gotten old....a majority of people are miserable and half cup full types....with me it falls on deaf ears 90% of the time.... So it reminds you of all the complaining that people did during the 8 years of Bush....or did it bother you as bad then....you do remember, right?..........you're very transparent my man.......and I have no theory of a conspiracy...........and if our forefather felt like you, we'd still be kissing the queen's ring, like they do in Canada.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 So it reminds you of all the complaining that people did during the 8 years of Bush....or did it bother you as bad then....you do remember, right?..........you're very transparent my man.......and I have no theory of a conspiracy...........and if our forefather felt like you, we'd still be kissing the queen's ring, like they do in Canada.... hey bush was an idiot, and his wars have cost a hell of a lot more than ALL the bailouts, so why aren't you bitching about that? AND they are costing un-necessary lives...but me complaining doesn't change those facts either...although the wars are STILL current, so voicing objections may/ maynot have effect. But I prefer not to live/ delve in the past, if so with what I have experienced I would be undiluted misery spouting nothing but negativity....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 So it reminds you of all the complaining that people did during the 8 years of Bush....or did it bother you as bad then....you do remember, right?..........you're very transparent my man.......and I have no theory of a conspiracy...........and if our forefather felt like you, we'd still be kissing the queen's ring, like they do in Canada.... and whats wrong with Canada ( aside from the French...LOL ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) and whats wrong with Canada ( aside from the French...LOL ) Who said anything was wrong......?there you go with that negative thinking again....oh, that's right you don't do that..... Edited June 12, 2009 by napfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Who said anything was wrong......?there you go with that negative thinking again....oh, that's right you don't do that..... nice twisting of attempted humor Nap.....will give you one thing....RELENTLESS..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 hey bush was an idiot, and his wars have cost a hell of a lot more than ALL the bailouts, so why aren't you bitching about that? AND they are costing un-necessary lives...but me complaining doesn't change those facts either...although the wars are STILL current, so voicing objections may/ maynot have effect. But I prefer not to live/ delve in the past, if so with what I have experienced I would be undiluted misery spouting nothing but negativity....... Wrong again...the $786 billion stimulus bill is almost as much as we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan together to date and now obama is propose a 600 billion tax increase to pay for his healthcare plan.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Wrong again...the $786 billion stimulus bill is almost as much as we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan together to date and now obama is propose a 600 billion tax increase to pay for his healthcare plan.... then I stand corrected....however the stimulus bill is actually attempting to acheive something worthwhile.....and beneficial to Americas wellbeing......I don't blame Bushie for Afganistan, but I question Iraq.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Wrong again...the $786 billion stimulus bill is almost as much as we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan together to date and now obama is propose a 600 billion tax increase to pay for his healthcare plan.... hey that 600 billion may be re-couped just from easing the un-insured burden....who knows.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaZor Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You know nap, you do not seem to be too knowledgeable about the man (and his ideas) that you use in your signature. Must be reflective of your knowledge of our founding fathers (I guess that is what you mean by "forefather"). Thomas Paine (and Thomas Jefferson both) regarded poverty as a symptom of the bad distribution of property perpetuated by the aristocratic pattern of inheritance. Jefferson favored statutory regulation of inheritance, whereas Paine highly favored an estate tax and he wrote about it in the Rights of Man. Large estates, he wrote, were a luxury and should be taxed accordingly. In short, it was his contention that the burden of taxes should be borne by those persons best capable of bearing the burden (he also was highly in favor of the progressive tax and produced graphs and charts proving his point of view). “The chief object of this tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is to extirpate the over-grown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principle sources of corruption at elections” -- T. Paine Rights of Man Hmmm, he seemed to have a 180 degree position from yours on taxation. Could there be more? Oh yeah, how about welfare? You obviously are against any form of welfare (except corporate welfare). You might want to get a copy of Property, Welfare, and Freedom in the Thought of Thomas Paine: A Critical Edition -- by Thomas Paine. He was highly in favor of welfare as a humanitarian end to balance society. What about government sponsored work programs , you know, sorta like the New Deal? Absolutely, and he argued that the estate taxes should pay for them. How about public education? Absolutely - he was a firm supporter of public education Even in the 1790’s Paine saw the need for international organizations (you mean, like the U.N.? -- OMG, yes!) as they would provide stability and help to prevent wars. What about religion and having a religion determine/influence governmental policy issues (like what they so-called "Christian" Right tries to do? "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." and “Priests and conjurors are of the same trade” -- T. Paine In conclusion, Paine was very emphatic about each citizen using their brain (and not just be mindless dupes to ideology): "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon." -- T. Paine You must be a Glenn Beck fan (he doesn't know much about Thomas Paine either) Might want to do some reading of Mr. Paine http://www.bookfinder.com/author/thomas-paine/2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You know nap, you do not seem to be too knowledgeable about the man (and his ideas) that you use in your signature. Must be reflective of your knowledge of our founding fathers (I guess that is what you mean by "forefather"). Thomas Paine (and Thomas Jefferson both) regarded poverty as a symptom of the bad distribution of property perpetuated by the aristocratic pattern of inheritance. Jefferson favored statutory regulation of inheritance, whereas Paine highly favored an estate tax and he wrote about it in the Rights of Man. Large estates, he wrote, were a luxury and should be taxed accordingly. In short, it was his contention that the burden of taxes should be borne by those persons best capable of bearing the burden (he also was highly in favor of the progressive tax and produced graphs and charts proving his point of view). “The chief object of this tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is to extirpate the over-grown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principle sources of corruption at elections” -- T. Paine Rights of Man Hmmm, he seemed to have a 180 degree position from yours on taxation. Could there be more? Oh yeah, how about welfare? You obviously are against any form of welfare (except corporate welfare). You might want to get a copy of Property, Welfare, and Freedom in the Thought of Thomas Paine: A Critical Edition -- by Thomas Paine. He was highly in favor of welfare as a humanitarian end to balance society. What about government sponsored work programs , you know, sorta like the New Deal? Absolutely, and he argued that the estate taxes should pay for them. How about public education? Absolutely - he was a firm supporter of public education Even in the 1790’s Paine saw the need for international organizations (you mean, like the U.N.? -- OMG, yes!) as they would provide stability and help to prevent wars. What about religion and having a religion determine/influence governmental policy issues (like what they so-called "Christian" Right tries to do? "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." and “Priests and conjurors are of the same trade” -- T. Paine In conclusion, Paine was very emphatic about each citizen using their brain (and not just be mindless dupes to ideology): "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon." -- T. Paine You must be a Glenn Beck fan (he doesn't know much about Thomas Paine either) Might want to do some reading of Mr. Paine http://www.bookfinder.com/author/thomas-paine/2/ prepare to be henpecked Razor.....I don't know nap personally, but anyone that disagrees with him in the slightest better roll their sleves up...you are not entitled to an opinion that counters his.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You know nap, you do not seem to be too knowledgeable about the man (and his ideas) that you use in your signature. Must be reflective of your knowledge of our founding fathers (I guess that is what you mean by "forefather"). Thomas Paine (and Thomas Jefferson both) regarded poverty as a symptom of the bad distribution of property perpetuated by the aristocratic pattern of inheritance. Jefferson favored statutory regulation of inheritance, whereas Paine highly favored an estate tax and he wrote about it in the Rights of Man. Large estates, he wrote, were a luxury and should be taxed accordingly. In short, it was his contention that the burden of taxes should be borne by those persons best capable of bearing the burden (he also was highly in favor of the progressive tax and produced graphs and charts proving his point of view). “The chief object of this tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is to extirpate the over-grown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principle sources of corruption at elections” -- T. Paine Rights of Man Hmmm, he seemed to have a 180 degree position from yours on taxation. Could there be more? Oh yeah, how about welfare? You obviously are against any form of welfare (except corporate welfare). You might want to get a copy of Property, Welfare, and Freedom in the Thought of Thomas Paine: A Critical Edition -- by Thomas Paine. He was highly in favor of welfare as a humanitarian end to balance society. What about government sponsored work programs , you know, sorta like the New Deal? Absolutely, and he argued that the estate taxes should pay for them. How about public education? Absolutely - he was a firm supporter of public education Even in the 1790’s Paine saw the need for international organizations (you mean, like the U.N.? -- OMG, yes!) as they would provide stability and help to prevent wars. What about religion and having a religion determine/influence governmental policy issues (like what they so-called "Christian" Right tries to do? "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." and “Priests and conjurors are of the same trade” -- T. Paine In conclusion, Paine was very emphatic about each citizen using their brain (and not just be mindless dupes to ideology): "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon." -- T. Paine You must be a Glenn Beck fan (he doesn't know much about Thomas Paine either) Might want to do some reading of Mr. Paine http://www.bookfinder.com/author/thomas-paine/2/ You have an amazing art for judging people, not sure what you do for a living but you'd be a hit on Springer, you could read peoples' thoughts and then tell them what their philosophy is on life and other pertnent issues.......I rarely watch Beck, but I have you as an Oberman fan.....is that right....let me give this a try.... you are a social liberal....you voted for obama....you have prior military service, but you didn't enjoy it, you didn't fit in..(it's the social liberal thing ya know).....you believe in giving taxpayers' money to people who are too lazy to earn their own...how am I doing so far?......you see no problem with national health care.....and gay marriage..... it really wasn't that hard, I just read thru your little prejudical rant about me and noted how you were able to determine my ideology from just my quoting of Paine...the I just extrapolated it and voila we have ourselves a genuine social liberal....never saw a tax increase or govt. program he didn't like ......a real authinic redistribitor of wealth...... how'd I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You have an amazing art for judging people, not sure what you do for a living but you'd be a hit on Springer, you could read peoples' thoughts and then tell them what their philosophy is on life and other pertnent issues.......I rarely watch Beck, but I have you as an Oberman fan.....is that right....let me give this a try.... you are a social liberal....you voted for obama....you have prior military service, but you didn't enjoy it, you didn't fit in..(it's the social liberal thing ya know).....you believe in giving taxpayers' money to people who are too lazy to earn their own...how am I doing so far?......you see no problem with national health care.....and gay marriage..... it really wasn't that hard, I just read thru your little prejudical rant about me and noted how you were able to determine my ideology from just my quoting of Paine...the I just extrapolated it and voila we have ourselves a genuine social liberal....never saw a tax increase or govt. program he didn't like ......a real authinic redistribitor of wealth...... how'd I do? LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 You have an amazing art for judging people, not sure what you do for a living but you'd be a hit on Springer, you could read peoples' thoughts and then tell them what their philosophy is on life and other pertnent issues.......I rarely watch Beck, but I have you as an Oberman fan.....is that right....let me give this a try.... you are a social liberal....you voted for obama....you have prior military service, but you didn't enjoy it, you didn't fit in..(it's the social liberal thing ya know).....you believe in giving taxpayers' money to people who are too lazy to earn their own...how am I doing so far?......you see no problem with national health care.....and gay marriage..... it really wasn't that hard, I just read thru your little prejudical rant about me and noted how you were able to determine my ideology from just my quoting of Paine...the I just extrapolated it and voila we have ourselves a genuine social liberal....never saw a tax increase or govt. program he didn't like ......a real authinic redistribitor of wealth...... how'd I do? Gee Nap, Razor schools you on Thomas Paine and the best you can come up with is to accuse him of judging people after which you go on to judgeand attempt to psychoanalyze him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I see that I taught nap a new term and he likes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Gee Nap, Razor schools you on Thomas Paine and the best you can come up with is to accuse him of judging people after which you go on to judgeand attempt to psychoanalyze him. Maybe you need to brush-up on reading comprehension......what makes you or razor think that I need schooling on Paine....therein lies the judging....go back and read the post again and it should be obvious that my comments about razor were tongue-in-cheek.....just to point out his the prejudice in the conclusions he was about to leap to about me, based on my use of a quote.......ya with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 a real authinic redistribitor of wealth......how'd I do? "authinic"? As a typographer, not so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm! Highlights on the agenda: ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House. The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate. And yet I see the other networks having a field day with opposing views as well as opinions on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Biden put on a short leash...... But five months into his vice presidency, Biden appears to have been pushed into the background, focusing on overseeing the implementation of Obama's $787 billion stimulus package, the creation of jobs and other domestic matters as the president and former rival Hillary Clinton -- and even former Sen. George Mitchell -- deal with the growing crises in Iran and North Korea, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rewriting the way America deals with a hostile Muslim world. By comparison, Biden's predecessor, Dick Cheney, was after five months already being called the most influential vice president ever. Even though Cheney didn't face any immediate crises at the outset of the Bush administration, he arguably became a co-planner in the U.S. war on terror after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaZor Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 You have an amazing art for judging people, not sure what you do for a living but you'd be a hit on Springer, you could read peoples' thoughts and then tell them what their philosophy is on life and other pertnent issues.......I rarely watch Beck, but I have you as an Oberman fan.....is that right....let me give this a try.... you are a social liberal....you voted for obama....you have prior military service, but you didn't enjoy it, you didn't fit in..(it's the social liberal thing ya know).....you believe in giving taxpayers' money to people who are too lazy to earn their own...how am I doing so far?......you see no problem with national health care.....and gay marriage..... it really wasn't that hard, I just read thru your little prejudical rant about me and noted how you were able to determine my ideology from just my quoting of Paine...the I just extrapolated it and voila we have ourselves a genuine social liberal....never saw a tax increase or govt. program he didn't like ......a real authinic redistribitor of wealth...... how'd I do? You seem to think that you have been “stealthy” in expressing your political philosophy in your posts. I did not make any judgments (conclusions) in regards to your beliefs based on your choice of signature quotes, however, I can recall the general tone of your posts previously. I merely was questioning your choice of quoting a social liberal. No, I do not watch Olberman, and in fact do not waste my time watching/listening to political commentary very often. The connection with Beck had more to do with his proclamation that “he” is Thomas Paine back in April, when he lampooned himself by showing his lack of knowledge of Mr. Paine and, in RW (revisionist) form, said that “I'm rewriting Thomas Paine's Common Sense”. The only reason that I made the above post was because you seemed to either not be informed about those you chose in your signature (yes, Thomas Paine is considered a ‘social liberal’ CLICK HERE - which appears to be diametrically opposed to your political philosophy) or maybe, it occurred to me, you had just picked up on Beck’s rants, or possibly, that you just liked the way that quotation sounds "Lead, follow or get out of the way". Yes, I am a decorated combat veteran, and yet I do not use a CIB as my avatar. I did what I had to and was very good at it . . . but ended up in not choosing to make it my career choice. The only people that I knew that “enjoyed” war were the lifers who knew that almost all promotions & career advancements are made in a combat zone. They mostly seemed to be base camp warriors . . . not that there is anything wrong with being support, but then, their experiences are quite different that those that actually experienced combat for prolonged periods. I pulled two tours in the jungle and you are right . . . I really didn’t enjoy it. Repub’s always fail to identify the real re-distribution of wealth that occurred in this country. I was one of those that greatly benefited from the president that really pulled off a re-distribution of wealth -- Pres Reagan – a fact that most Rep’s want to forget. Reagan promptly (in his first yr in ofc) cut income taxes on the higher incomes from 70% by more than in half. I was in one of those in the brackets whose taxes were cut drastically and saved more in taxes than was the median income at the time. To cover his tax cuts on the higher incomes and exploding deficits that his admin was ringing up, Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the SS Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents before him -- combined. In short, he cut the tax load on the upper income levels by more than half – and then doubled the tax burden on the middle class – the biggest tax increase in history on the majority of Americans. But, let me just add in here two other things that Reagan did (and are rarely brought to light) to complete his war on the middle class (or at least make them pay more than their fair share of taxes and complete his re-distribution of wealth), the Reagan administration pushed for, and got, a change in the tax code that made Social Security income taxable for the first time in history (on incomes as low as $20k for single and $25k for married) in 1984. Oh but, he wasn’t done yet . . . in 1987 he pushed for, and got, tax code changes so that unemployment benefits became fully taxable income. Now you see, that is just the opposite of what I believe should be done in our society. For capitalism to work, a society MUST have a strong middle (consumer) class (hell the Chinese communists even know that). When you enact a ‘war’ on, and weaken the middle class, you subvert capitalism. The upper level income individuals do NOT need help. And contrary to what most conservatives believe, doing so does not improve full employment, or income levels for the masses. Anyone that contends that it does, I say prove it – by citing employment and income stats (realities). As an entrepreneur, I would prefer to have a large customer base that can afford my products/services (I was competent enough to do very well in that regard) instead getting tax cuts to the wrong people resulting in a financially weak customer base. Of course, with Geo W’s two terms, consumerism had to be highly encouraged to pay for the $7 trillion deficits that were rung up during his years, because of his fervent commitment to his ideology movement: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market -- however, instead now there wasn’t a strong middle-class with the ability to buy because of their financial strength, instead that consumerism had to be done with massive increases in private debt which has in turn played an important role in where we are to are today. No, I do not support “welfare queens”, as a matter of fact, I tend to favor that all assistance programs (and that covers ALL assistance programs including ‘safety nets’ for individuals AND corporate ‘safety nets’ - as welfare) should be designed as a temporary condition that includes time-certain programs designed to get the individual and/or business off assistance by providing education, training, child care, transportation for individuals; technical subsidies, even import quotas to protect specific industries that are of strategic interest to our nation, etc for corporations. Let’s face it, any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages (including grants and/or tax breaks) to specific companies or industries is - in fact - corporate welfare/assistance. But most Republicans cannot see that gov’t assistance to corporations is - in fact - welfare. What were the other two? Oh, yes national health care and gay marriage. As far as gay marriage, I really don’t care one way or the other but would add that what it’s really about is civil unions IMO – which I think would be a better solution. I find it humorous that the Mormon (LDS) church pumped $10million into the Amendment 8 vote in Calif last year, and yet there are estimates that there are over 40,000 Mormon/LDS members that live in polygamy. What ever happened to one man-one woman concept? As far as National Health care goes, if the private sector can come up with a program that does not have cherry-picking (pre-existing conditions) coverage (universal access w/o concern for work status or health history), non-deniability, has nationwide portability, elimination of an insurance company bureaucrat between the insured and their doctor (making decisions on coverage –take a look at your policy – if it provides for pre-approval – you have a bureaucrat b/w you and your doctor), a choice and a distinction between everyday medical care and catastrophic medical care, with defined care options (for instance, not all families need pregnancy, mental health, or hospice care benefits), elimination of huge overhead costs (mandatory reduction from 20-30% or more, down to less than 5% max), cost controls due to over-consumption*, and get everyone covered (all American citizens should be covered - excluding undocumented residents) – then I have no problem with the private sector doing it. If we don't do something, when HC hits 20% of GDP, most will be doomed anyway - in ways they cannot even comprehend at this point. Here’s what you might want to consider doing: Call or write each of your representatives in both the House and Senate and ask them if they are willing to give up their public plan – and acquire their health insurance from the private sector, at their own expense. If a public plan is So Bad – why are they not eager to rid themselves of their own coverage on such a plan? If the private sector can provide better coverage – why are they on a “public plan”? There is one thing more that must be part of health care reform and that is: National licensing of both conventional and alternative medical doctors. The AMA has a very long history of being unwilling, or incompetent, in policing itself of the small percentage that cause most of the malpractice problems that haunt the medical profession and drive up their costs to practice. Currently there is no provision to thwart a “bad” doctor who even looses his/her license in one state from moving to another state and setting up a practice, and oftentimes repeating his/her incompetence on a new set of victims. Many people want to think that tort reform is the answer, but if the AMA just did its job in the first place, there would be very few cases that would arise. Eliminate the problem doctors – all but eliminate the problem. * A very important provision must be the transparency of costs. For instance, think about the last time you went to the doctor’s office. Let’s say he determined that a blood test was needed. Can you say how much this cost? Many of you might answer is $15 or $20 (because that is your co-pay) . . . but your answer is not only incomplete. . . it is wrong. What needs to be known is the full cost. In other words, how much did the doctor charge your insurance company? You probably don’t know. Most people don’t care either and that is the problem with our current system and what most people do not realize that it is that extra cost that you never hear about, but everyone pays for – in the form of higher insurance premiums. And that blood test? It probably was more in the area of $300. Guess who pays for that. Maybe you need to brush-up on reading comprehension......what makes you or razor think that I need schooling on Paine....therein lies the judging....go back and read the post again and it should be obvious that my comments about razor were tongue-in-cheek.....just to point out his the prejudice in the conclusions he was about to leap to about me, based on my use of a quote.......ya with me? Nice try . . . a little back-peddling there . . . I hope you didn’t choke on your “tongue” . . . sorry if my pointing out the fact that you were using a social liberal in you signature offended you. Me? No, I am a pragmatist - some very conservative . . . mostly moderate . . . and very few liberal philosophies. For instance, it is just plain stupid to chop the financial legs off the middle class that our economy (65%+ on the consumer) is based on - I'd say that is being pragmatic. I am still in the tax bracket that will experience a tax increase in 2011, but I have no intentions of hiring any employees, starting any new businesses, etc. Now McCain would have wanted to give me a tax break (assuming that I would do those things I guess) -- but that just is not a reality. I probably put in less hours - in a week - than you spend whining on how Obama is screwing everything up. When my taxes go up - I'll just put in a few more hours to make up for it. I'd rather see the tax breaks go to those who need it and can do a lot more to get our economy going again. I guess it all depends on what you see in "the picture" -- is it yourself?(what has the country done for me? - & screw everyone else - even those that got left behind, or are victims of actions of others), or the bigger picture (what can I do for my country - how can I help?). If that makes me a social liberal in your eyes - so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) You seem to think that you have been “stealthy” in expressing your political philosophy in your posts. I did not make any judgments (conclusions) in regards to your beliefs based on your choice of signature quotes, however, I can recall the general tone of your posts previously. I merely was questioning your choice of quoting a social liberal. No, I do not watch Olberman, and in fact do not waste my time watching/listening to political commentary very often. The connection with Beck had more to do with his proclamation that “he” is Thomas Paine back in April, when he lampooned himself by showing his lack of knowledge of Mr. Paine and, in RW (revisionist) form, said that “I'm rewriting Thomas Paine's Common Sense”. The only reason that I made the above post was because you seemed to either not be informed about those you chose in your signature (yes, Thomas Paine is considered a ‘social liberal’ CLICK HERE - which appears to be diametrically opposed to your political philosophy) or maybe, it occurred to me, you had just picked up on Beck’s rants, or possibly, that you just liked the way that quotation sounds "Lead, follow or get out of the way". Yes, I am a decorated combat veteran, and yet I do not use a CIB as my avatar. I did what I had to and was very good at it . . . but ended up in not choosing to make it my career choice. The only people that I knew that “enjoyed” war were the lifers who knew that almost all promotions & career advancements are made in a combat zone. They mostly seemed to be base camp warriors . . . not that there is anything wrong with being support, but then, their experiences are quite different that those that actually experienced combat for prolonged periods. I pulled two tours in the jungle and you are right . . . I really didn’t enjoy it. Repub’s always fail to identify the real re-distribution of wealth that occurred in this country. I was one of those that greatly benefited from the president that really pulled off a re-distribution of wealth -- Pres Reagan – a fact that most Rep’s want to forget. Reagan promptly (in his first yr in ofc) cut income taxes on the higher incomes from 70% by more than in half. I was in one of those in the brackets whose taxes were cut drastically and saved more in taxes than was the median income at the time. To cover his tax cuts on the higher incomes and exploding deficits that his admin was ringing up, Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the SS Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents before him -- combined. In short, he cut the tax load on the upper income levels by more than half – and then doubled the tax burden on the middle class – the biggest tax increase in history on the majority of Americans. But, let me just add in here two other things that Reagan did (and are rarely brought to light) to complete his war on the middle class (or at least make them pay more than their fair share of taxes and complete his re-distribution of wealth), the Reagan administration pushed for, and got, a change in the tax code that made Social Security income taxable for the first time in history (on incomes as low as $20k for single and $25k for married) in 1984. Oh but, he wasn’t done yet . . . in 1987 he pushed for, and got, tax code changes so that unemployment benefits became fully taxable income. Now you see, that is just the opposite of what I believe should be done in our society. For capitalism to work, a society MUST have a strong middle (consumer) class (hell the Chinese communists even know that). When you enact a ‘war’ on, and weaken the middle class, you subvert capitalism. The upper level income individuals do NOT need help. And contrary to what most conservatives believe, doing so does not improve full employment, or income levels for the masses. Anyone that contends that it does, I say prove it – by citing employment and income stats (realities). As an entrepreneur, I would prefer to have a large customer base that can afford my products/services (I was competent enough to do very well in that regard) instead getting tax cuts to the wrong people resulting in a financially weak customer base. Of course, with Geo W’s two terms, consumerism had to be highly encouraged to pay for the $7 trillion deficits that were rung up during his years, because of his fervent commitment to his ideology movement: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market -- however, instead now there wasn’t a strong middle-class with the ability to buy because of their financial strength, instead that consumerism had to be done with massive increases in private debt which has in turn played an important role in where we are to are today. No, I do not support “welfare queens”, as a matter of fact, I tend to favor that all assistance programs (and that covers ALL assistance programs including ‘safety nets’ for individuals AND corporate ‘safety nets’ - as welfare) should be designed as a temporary condition that includes time-certain programs designed to get the individual and/or business off assistance by providing education, training, child care, transportation for individuals; technical subsidies, even import quotas to protect specific industries that are of strategic interest to our nation, etc for corporations. Let’s face it, any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages (including grants and/or tax breaks) to specific companies or industries is - in fact - corporate welfare/assistance. But most Republicans cannot see that gov’t assistance to corporations is - in fact - welfare. What were the other two? Oh, yes national health care and gay marriage. As far as gay marriage, I really don’t care one way or the other but would add that what it’s really about is civil unions IMO – which I think would be a better solution. I find it humorous that the Mormon (LDS) church pumped $10million into the Amendment 8 vote in Calif last year, and yet there are estimates that there are over 40,000 Mormon/LDS members that live in polygamy. What ever happened to one man-one woman concept? As far as National Health care goes, if the private sector can come up with a program that does not have cherry-picking (pre-existing conditions) coverage (universal access w/o concern for work status or health history), non-deniability, has nationwide portability, elimination of an insurance company bureaucrat between the insured and their doctor (making decisions on coverage –take a look at your policy – if it provides for pre-approval – you have a bureaucrat b/w you and your doctor), a choice and a distinction between everyday medical care and catastrophic medical care, with defined care options (for instance, not all families need pregnancy, mental health, or hospice care benefits), elimination of huge overhead costs (mandatory reduction from 20-30% or more, down to less than 5% max), cost controls due to over-consumption*, and get everyone covered (all American citizens should be covered - excluding undocumented residents) – then I have no problem with the private sector doing it. If we don't do something, when HC hits 20% of GDP, most will be doomed anyway - in ways they cannot even comprehend at this point. Here’s what you might want to consider doing: Call or write each of your representatives in both the House and Senate and ask them if they are willing to give up their public plan – and acquire their health insurance from the private sector, at their own expense. If a public plan is So Bad – why are they not eager to rid themselves of their own coverage on such a plan? If the private sector can provide better coverage – why are they on a “public plan”? There is one thing more that must be part of health care reform and that is: National licensing of both conventional and alternative medical doctors. The AMA has a very long history of being unwilling, or incompetent, in policing itself of the small percentage that cause most of the malpractice problems that haunt the medical profession and drive up their costs to practice. Currently there is no provision to thwart a “bad” doctor who even looses his/her license in one state from moving to another state and setting up a practice, and oftentimes repeating his/her incompetence on a new set of victims. Many people want to think that tort reform is the answer, but if the AMA just did its job in the first place, there would be very few cases that would arise. Eliminate the problem doctors – all but eliminate the problem. * A very important provision must be the transparency of costs. For instance, think about the last time you went to the doctor’s office. Let’s say he determined that a blood test was needed. Can you say how much this cost? Many of you might answer is $15 or $20 (because that is your co-pay) . . . but your answer is not only incomplete. . . it is wrong. What needs to be known is the full cost. In other words, how much did the doctor charge your insurance company? You probably don’t know. Most people don’t care either and that is the problem with our current system and what most people do not realize that it is that extra cost that you never hear about, but everyone pays for – in the form of higher insurance premiums. And that blood test? It probably was more in the area of $300. Guess who pays for that. Nice try . . . a little back-peddling there . . . I hope you didn’t choke on your “tongue” . . . sorry if my pointing out the fact that you were using a social liberal in you signature offended you. Me? No, I am a pragmatist - some very conservative . . . mostly moderate . . . and very few liberal philosophies. For instance, it is just plain stupid to chop the financial legs off the middle class that our economy (65%+ on the consumer) is based on - I'd say that is being pragmatic. I am still in the tax bracket that will experience a tax increase in 2011, but I have no intentions of hiring any employees, starting any new businesses, etc. Now McCain would have wanted to give me a tax break (assuming that I would do those things I guess) -- but that just is not a reality. I probably put in less hours - in a week - than you spend whining on how Obama is screwing everything up. When my taxes go up - I'll just put in a few more hours to make up for it. I'd rather see the tax breaks go to those who need it and can do a lot more to get our economy going again. I guess it all depends on what you see in "the picture" -- is it yourself?(what has the country done for me? - & screw everyone else - even those that got left behind, or are victims of actions of others), or the bigger picture (what can I do for my country - how can I help?). If that makes me a social liberal in your eyes - so be it. Feel better?...I know what a CIB is. Edited June 19, 2009 by napfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 The shine is beginning to wear off.......it will be over by the mid-term elections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 shouldn't we close this topic and start a new one , like How Obama screcew up? or how great he is? or isn't? really the election cycle is over he is yours, ours, mine, or someone else's president. let it go and keep paying your taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 shouldn't we close this topic and start a new one , like How Obama screcew up?or how great he is? or isn't? really the election cycle is over he is yours, ours, mine, or someone else's president. let it go and keep paying your taxes. Go ahead, be my guest.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts