The trouble with a democracy comes when there is not much choice on whom to vote into power...but it makes people think they have a choice therefore blinding most of them to the problem. Can anyone name a perfect system over history? I doubt it. Is there one that was truly for the people? Hmmm? We need a government and therefore we do the best we can to ignore the fact we don't have any chance of making a change unless we start getting off our fat arses and doing something about it....remember it has happened...but when it did, people made it happen. Now we all just complain.
im starting to suspect that the notion of nation states as weve come to know them has made them impractical.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you have all been trained like dogs
except for gimme and a few others
to support a 2-party system
when each side is a cash-whore
with media-driven elections
there is only one goal in this system
to keep 95% of all wealth
in 2% of the people's pockets
and people just keep voting
thinking they can change this
wage slavery at it's finest
what is the quote that goes something like
-the best slave is one that doesn't even know they are a slave-
was it zinn?
all this because some of us don't think like you :?
your posts is a perfect example of what politics and politician breed
in the masses "I and and some others are right and the rest of you are wrong"
if you have an idea thats great but but who are you to criticize the others
on this forum......ez man.
The Obama agenda is, and always has been, to undermine our way of living. He has nothing but contempt for this nation and this people.
I don't usually like to insult people, and I should point out that I've been known to agree with Electric_Delta before, but this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Just because a politician has a different idea about how to improve the country than you do doesn't mean he has contempt for the nation.
I think what he's saying is that pushing through universal healthcare so that everyone can receive medical help, regardless of how much money they have in the bank, constitutes 'defying the will of the peole'. I think the word 'people' here refers to those uninformed yahoo's who follow the Tea Party. Though I could be wrong.
Yes, you're wrong.
Polling consistently proved how the majority of Americans were against this bill.
Polling consistently proved how the majority of Americans were against this bill.
Were these the same Americans that also thought Death Panels were real? Because I don't honestly trust those people to accurately tell me what color the sky is on a sunny day.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
you have all been trained like dogs
except for gimme and a few others
to support a 2-party system
when each side is a cash-whore
with media-driven elections
there is only one goal in this system
to keep 95% of all wealth
in 2% of the people's pockets
and people just keep voting
thinking they can change this
wage slavery at it's finest
what is the quote that goes something like
-the best slave is one that doesn't even know they are a slave-
was it zinn?
all this because some of us don't think like you :?
your posts is a perfect example of what politics and politician breed
in the masses "I and and some others are right and the rest of you are wrong"
if you have an idea thats great but but who are you to criticize the others
on this forum......ez man.
Godfather.
i do apologize if i have "criticized" anyone
i say "trained like dogs" because i feel people have been tricked into something
that they do not even want or need in the first place
g
by saying you do not think like me
are you saying that i am wrong in my assessment of our political system
or that you support corruption and greed?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
I don't care how much you make, no one should be forced to give more of their hard-earned money to this circus. If there is anything we should all be united on, stopping tax increases should be it. If you are in favor of giving more of your money to the government, do it by donation please and leave me out of the fray.
You are completely oblivious to the fact that states are broke, that cities and counties are laying off police and fire. It is time to wake the fuck up. If we were running a surplus your moronic ideal of everyone keeps their money might be worth a fraction of a second of a thought, but that is not the reality we are facing. I suggest you read up on the coming disaster of the world default and come back with something more substantial than, rich people should be able to keep their money.
I was voicing my discontent towards federal taxes, not state taxes as you response is concerned. The local police and firemen are not affected by this . . . except that their paycheck may get smaller if a compromise isn't reached.
And I don't think that my ideal of people keeping their money should be labeled as moronic.
you have all been trained like dogs
except for gimme and a few others
to support a 2-party system
when each side is a cash-whore
with media-driven elections
there is only one goal in this system
to keep 95% of all wealth
in 2% of the people's pockets
and people just keep voting
thinking they can change this
wage slavery at it's finest
what is the quote that goes something like
-the best slave is one that doesn't even know they are a slave-
was it zinn?
all this because some of us don't think like you :?
your posts is a perfect example of what politics and politician breed
in the masses "I and and some others are right and the rest of you are wrong"
if you have an idea thats great but but who are you to criticize the others
on this forum......ez man.
Godfather.
i do apologize if i have "criticized" anyone
i say "trained like dogs" because i feel people have been tricked into something
that they do not even want or need in the first place
g
by saying you do not think like me
are you saying that i am wrong in my assessment of our political system
or that you support corruption and greed?
nope,I am not saying anybody is wrong or wright different people might have different ideas than others
thats all.
I don't think anybody supports corruption.
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Polling consistently proved how the majority of Americans were against this bill.
Were these the same Americans that also thought Death Panels were real? Because I don't honestly trust those people to accurately tell me what color the sky is on a sunny day.
Well, I don't trust the government to accurately administer health care.
to its core in my opinion, it's like trying to pick out anything good in it and hold on to it,
some people still believe in the American way(like me) and they try to hold on to what ever is good
about it,change would be nice but it all seems so messed up that when someone promises change
it's too hard to trust them.
Polling consistently proved how the majority of Americans were against this bill.
Were these the same Americans that also thought Death Panels were real? Because I don't honestly trust those people to accurately tell me what color the sky is on a sunny day.
Well, I don't trust the government to accurately administer health care.
Fair enough - but the government-run healthcare systems that members of the military and congress enjoy seem to be working just fine.
For what it's worth, I'm not a huge fan of the bill as it stands at the moment - I think it was started with good intentions, but then along the way seemed to just lose its edge.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
So many people in America vote Republican...many claiming because they dislike the government running things and prefer a free market...yes, that can be good, but not if the people running the 'free market' are the top 2% of the country!!! Why do so many people not see this???? :roll:
I don't think either side is perfect and never will be...that's the nature of politics but when I voted to take a pay freeze as a teacher to help the school community, it was very hard to see the bankers, lawyers and Wall street people, whose kids I teach, be thankful they didn't have to give up their vacation homes due to the harder times. (The teachers saved a huge increase in property taxes). I happen to love a lot of the peole in the community, but it serves as a way to demonstrate how the wealthy seem to have more support in hard times.
I hear you on that last point. I work for a major public university in the South, and we're about to enter a third consecutive year of not even receiving a cost of living increase on our salaries. We're being told it's for the good of the institution, we have to make sacrifices to the university can survive. So, nobody gets a cost of living increase, and nobody gets a raise.
I have no problem with that... except... the bigwigs who run the university found a loophole and figured out a way to give each other raises, so while us plebs sit around and hope the price of gas doesn't go up too much during hurricane season, they get to set aside a million bucks in each budget to cover their raises.
I think there are some parallels between that and the tax cut issue being debated at the moment: the people with the money get to make the rules, and the people making the rules are going to make damn sure they use that power to give themselves every advantage they can.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Thanks so much for educating me with your thread. Are the Dems. responsible for anything. Do they not have lobbyists and high interest groups writing them checks. Republicans have a different phylosophy on economics than Dems. Can you you try not to be so biased next ime and mabe I will respect what you have to share..
Thanks so much for educating me with your thread. Are the Dems. responsible for anything. Do they not have lobbyists and high interest groups writing them checks. Republicans have a different phylosophy on economics than Dems. Can you you try not to be so biased next ime and mabe I will respect what you have to share..
Biased? What bias? The facts are the facts. The Republicans support tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the country. What's biased about that fact?
Maybe this latest article will shed some more light on the original one at the top of this thread:
Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts
Allies say president 'blackmailed' into extending tax cut for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue
Chris McGreal in Washington
The Guardian, Tuesday 7 December 2010
Barack Obama is bowing to Republican demands to extend a deep tax cut for wealthier Americans, to the fury of some of the president's allies who say he has succumbed to "blackmail".
In a bruising political battle that appears to set the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republicans in Congress following their victories in last month's midterm elections, the president had sought to extend a tax cut for middle-class Americans introduced by the Bush administration seven years ago which expires at the end of this month. But he wanted to see a return to pre-cut rates for households with an income above $250,000 a year, on the grounds that wealthier Americans could afford to pay more. The move would generate trillions of dollars for the financially-strapped treasury over the next decade.
The Democratic leadership believed that provided the middle class was looked after, the Republicans would find it difficult to justify tax cuts for the wealthy. The House of Representatives, still controlled by Democrats until the new Congress is sworn in next month, passed Obama's plan by a clear majority last week. But Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate at the weekend and said they would rather see everyone's taxes rise than agree to scrapping the cuts for the wealthy.
Some Democrats called on Obama to stand firm and let the Republicans carry the blame for the inevitable middle-class backlash. But leading Democrats say the president is backing down and has agreed to extend tax cuts for everyone. In return, the White House appears to have extracted an agreement to extend benefits for the long-term unemployed.
Today Obama said that his priority is to "prevent the middle-class tax increase" that would have come about if there was no agreement. "There's some serious debates that are still taking place. Republicans want to make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
"I have argued that we can't afford it right now. But what I've also said, we have to find consensus here because a middle-class tax hike would be very tough not only on working families, it would also be a drag on our economy at this moment," he said. "We've got to make sure we're coming up with a solution, even if it's not 100% of what I want or what the Republicans want."
Leading Democrats did not hide their frustration at the president's backtracking. Senator John Kerry, the former presidential candidate, accused Republicans of holding the country hostage.
"They've said, 'No, we are willing to hold that hostage so that we can give the wealthiest people in the country a bonus tax cut'," he said.
The outgoing House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is reported to have expressed deep unhappiness at the deal, saying the White House gave in too easily to Republican pressure. Richard Durbin, the second highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, said the agreement to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy was "against my judgment".
Paul Krugman, the Nobel economics prize winner, called on Obama to stand firm against the Republicans' "tax-cut blackmail" which will cost the US treasury $4 trillion in revenue over the next decade and prompt a "major fiscal crisis".
"If Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they'll just face more demands in the future. As long as Republicans believe that Mr Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they'll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America's fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown?" Krugman wrote in the New York Times.
But Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said that Obama had little choice but to make a deal.
"The Democrats generally haven't adjusted to the fact that they lost the election badly. That's fundamental and they haven't accepted it. Republicans designated maintaining tax cuts as their top priority," he said.
"The Republicans have pulled it off at the right moment. It's immediately after the election with two years to go before the next election. So the Republicans are getting to please their constituency which believes in that from top to bottom - not just the rich but their middle-class members - without suffering any real electoral consequences. That's why Obama caved. In the end, everybody's taxes would have gone up. Republicans would have held to this and blamed Obama."
Sabato said that the confrontation over taxes sets the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and an increasingly belligerent Republican leadership in the Senate next year.
"This is going to be a very inflexible Republican congress," he said.
In a statement from the White House last night, Obama sought to explain to the American people how he had come to agree to what many in his own party decried as a humiliating climbdown. He said that he had with regrets accepted compromise in order to spare millions of struggling Americans further pain in the form of rising taxes.
Obama made no attempt to disguise his contempt for the Republican position. He said he "completely disagreed" with their insistence that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two per cent of Americans were made permanent.
"Economists from all across the political spectrum believe giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to grow our economy."
But he said that he felt he had no option but to swallow that element in order to loosen the Republican stranglehold which would have seen two million Americans lose their unemployment benefits by the end of this month and millions more face rising taxes.
"What is abundantly clear to everybody in this town is that the Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans."
He conceded that the compromise would be unpopular equally among his supporters and opponents. But he said "I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington." "I think this is a symptom of the weakness that was produced November 2 which in turn was a symptom of the weakness produced by a bad economy and Obama's decisions."
Also, point out where in the Constitution it is declared that we must buy anything from the federal government.
Shredding our Constitution sure comes off as contempt.
Where in the bill does it say you have to buy anything from the federal government?
If you aren't otherwise insured, you must purchase Obamacare or be penalized. Realistically, everyone will face those circumstances after private insurance becomes so expensive it's no longer a viable option for employers to offer it.
Also, point out where in the Constitution it is declared that we must buy anything from the federal government.
Shredding our Constitution sure comes off as contempt.
Where in the bill does it say you have to buy anything from the federal government?
If you aren't otherwise insured, you must purchase Obamacare or be penalized. Realistically, everyone will face those circumstances after private insurance becomes so expensive it's no longer a viable option for employers to offer it.
That's my primary beef with it - I think the government should've provided an affordable health insurance option and left it at that. I read yesterday that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care for its citizens - if that's true, then that's not exactly a statistic to brag about.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Where in the bill does it say you have to buy anything from the federal government?
If you aren't otherwise insured, you must purchase Obamacare or be penalized. Realistically, everyone will face those circumstances after private insurance becomes so expensive it's no longer a viable option for employers to offer it.
That's my primary beef with it - I think the government should've provided an affordable health insurance option and left it at that. I read yesterday that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care for its citizens - if that's true, then that's not exactly a statistic to brag about.
universal healthcare for everyone!
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
We have that in New Zealand and it works just fine - I never understood why half of America seems to think it's a crime against humanity. I'm not sure how yours works across the ditch, but we have a fun wrinkle in our system - if you're in an accident, the government will pay your medical costs... and the trade-off of that is you're not allowed to sue.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
We have that in New Zealand and it works just fine - I never understood why half of America seems to think it's a crime against humanity. I'm not sure how yours works across the ditch, but we have a fun wrinkle in our system - if you're in an accident, the government will pay your medical costs... and the trade-off of that is you're not allowed to sue.
We have that in New Zealand and it works just fine - I never understood why half of America seems to think it's a crime against humanity. I'm not sure how yours works across the ditch, but we have a fun wrinkle in our system - if you're in an accident, the government will pay your medical costs... and the trade-off of that is you're not allowed to sue.
the primary problem is that because the government has been co-opted by large corporations ... it is inefficient and managing and administering these services ... the rule of thumb is that someone has to make a pretty penny in any policy which essentially removes the reason why gov't should handle it ...
We have that in New Zealand and it works just fine - I never understood why half of America seems to think it's a crime against humanity. I'm not sure how yours works across the ditch, but we have a fun wrinkle in our system - if you're in an accident, the government will pay your medical costs... and the trade-off of that is you're not allowed to sue.
the primary problem is that because the government has been co-opted by large corporations ... it is inefficient and managing and administering these services ... the rule of thumb is that someone has to make a pretty penny in any policy which essentially removes the reason why gov't should handle it ...
all i know is the times ive been admitted to hospital... childbirth, industrial accident, corrective surgery and medical emergency(which required ambulance transport) ive been able to access services without worrying whether it was gonna cause financial hardship. it also means that when i need to attend a doctors surgery, which admittedly is extremely rare... but you know i do have kids, i can do so. and i dont have to wait until i have the money to pay... thereby nipping whatever illness that has arisen, in the bud. and avoiding more intensive and probably more expensive medical services.
the system isnt perfect and of course ive had surgery bumped cause it was considered nonessential and elective.
it is my opinion that if governments funded public health, which i consider absolutely essential, better then the problems seen would not disappear altogether but be less acute. were talking about the health of nations here. how is that not priority #1?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
We have that in New Zealand and it works just fine - I never understood why half of America seems to think it's a crime against humanity. I'm not sure how yours works across the ditch, but we have a fun wrinkle in our system - if you're in an accident, the government will pay your medical costs... and the trade-off of that is you're not allowed to sue.
the primary problem is that because the government has been co-opted by large corporations ... it is inefficient and managing and administering these services ... the rule of thumb is that someone has to make a pretty penny in any policy which essentially removes the reason why gov't should handle it ...
all i know is the times ive been admitted to hospital... childbirth, industrial accident, corrective surgery and medical emergency(which required ambulance transport) ive been able to access services without worrying whether it was gonna cause financial hardship. it also means that when i need to attend a doctors surgery, which admittedly is extremely rare... but you know i do have kids, i can do so. and i dont have to wait until i have the money to pay... thereby nipping whatever illness that has arisen, in the bud. and avoiding more intensive and probably more expensive medical services.
the system isnt perfect and of course ive had surgery bumped cause it was considered nonessential and elective.
it is my opinion that if governments funded public health, which i consider absolutely essential, better then the problems seen would not disappear altogether but be less acute. were talking about the health of nations here. how is that not priority #1?
Because there are people out there in America who think a country can function perfectly well without a government. They don't want to pay taxes, and they assume that if they didn't, then a private company would come along and build their roads for them. Private companies would also put up traffic lights; and run schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, and air traffic control towers at airports.
These same people think that capitalism is a perfect solution, and that if the country was 100% capitalist then everything would be hunky-dory. Everybody would be able to go to privately-owned and -run schools and hospitals that were trying to make as much money as possible.
These same people however also can't understand why a company hell-bent on making as much money as possible would ever move its production overseas if it meant it could save on production costs.
To them, you should be out to make as much money as possible... as long as you don't find a cheaper way to do it that they don't like. And if you're providing a service that every other country on earth offers its citizens as a basic right, but you've priced some of your own citizens out of it because your sole goal is to make money, then it's the fault of the citizens who can't afford it because they're clearly too lazy to keep up.
In short, pure capitalism doesn't work in the real world any more than pure socialism does. But there are still people out there who don't see it that way - and a lot of those people think the government has no business making sure its citizens receive basic medical care.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Forced the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery to remove a video from an art exhibit (because Christians found it icky) by threatening to withhold funding if they didn't...
Denied a director tax breaks he was expected to receive for filming his movie in a certain state, because they felt his movie portrayed that state in a negative light...
And compared Obama's support of a bill that would give unemployment benefits to unemployed people to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I can't wait to see what's coming next. Maybe they'll try and ban chihuahuas because they find Mexican dogs offensive. They might try to ban Kwanzaa because some WMAs don't like it. They might compare Chanukah to the Holocaust, just for the hell of it.
They've invented a war on Christmas, it seems, to hide the fact that they're waging a war on common sense and perspective.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Forced the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery to remove a video from an art exhibit (because Christians found it icky) by threatening to withhold funding if they didn't...
Denied a director tax breaks he was expected to receive for filming his movie in a certain state, because they felt his movie portrayed that state in a negative light...
And compared Obama's support of a bill that would give unemployment benefits to unemployed people to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I can't wait to see what's coming next. Maybe they'll try and ban chihuahuas because they find Mexican dogs offensive. They might try to ban Kwanzaa because some WMAs don't like it. They might compare Chanukah to the Holocaust, just for the hell of it.
They've invented a war on Christmas, it seems, to hide the fact that they're waging a war on common sense and perspective.
Forced the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery to remove a video from an art exhibit (because Christians found it icky) by threatening to withhold funding if they didn't...
Denied a director tax breaks he was expected to receive for filming his movie in a certain state, because they felt his movie portrayed that state in a negative light...
And compared Obama's support of a bill that would give unemployment benefits to unemployed people to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I can't wait to see what's coming next. Maybe they'll try and ban chihuahuas because they find Mexican dogs offensive. They might try to ban Kwanzaa because some WMAs don't like it. They might compare Chanukah to the Holocaust, just for the hell of it.
They've invented a war on Christmas, it seems, to hide the fact that they're waging a war on common sense and perspective.
Man, politics are stupid and too many people buy into the surface level bullshit.
The republicans are not only out for the rich. That is crazy political speak. They have a different set of priorities though. All this Stuff and Nonsense is starting to agitate me. I attempted to watch Rachel Maddow last night and was getting so pissed that I had to turn off the TV. There is no real, open dialogue, just political speak, posturing, and straight up bullshit.
give me one substantial policy idea put out by republicans that are aimed to address the properity gap and/or the poor ...
If you aren't otherwise insured, you must purchase Obamacare or be penalized. Realistically, everyone will face those circumstances after private insurance becomes so expensive it's no longer a viable option for employers to offer it.[/quote]
That's my primary beef with it - I think the government should've provided an affordable health insurance option and left it at that. I read yesterday that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care for its citizens - if that's true, then that's not exactly a statistic to brag about.[/quote]
Comments
im starting to suspect that the notion of nation states as weve come to know them has made them impractical.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
all this because some of us don't think like you :?
your posts is a perfect example of what politics and politician breed
in the masses "I and and some others are right and the rest of you are wrong"
if you have an idea thats great but but who are you to criticize the others
on this forum......ez man.
Godfather.
Yes, you're wrong.
Polling consistently proved how the majority of Americans were against this bill.
Shredding our Constitution sure comes off as contempt.
Were these the same Americans that also thought Death Panels were real? Because I don't honestly trust those people to accurately tell me what color the sky is on a sunny day.
i do apologize if i have "criticized" anyone
i say "trained like dogs" because i feel people have been tricked into something
that they do not even want or need in the first place
g
by saying you do not think like me
are you saying that i am wrong in my assessment of our political system
or that you support corruption and greed?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
And I don't think that my ideal of people keeping their money should be labeled as moronic.
nope,I am not saying anybody is wrong or wright different people might have different ideas than others
thats all.
I don't think anybody supports corruption.
Godfather.
is the system corrupt?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Well, I don't trust the government to accurately administer health care.
to its core in my opinion, it's like trying to pick out anything good in it and hold on to it,
some people still believe in the American way(like me) and they try to hold on to what ever is good
about it,change would be nice but it all seems so messed up that when someone promises change
it's too hard to trust them.
Godfather.
Fair enough - but the government-run healthcare systems that members of the military and congress enjoy seem to be working just fine.
For what it's worth, I'm not a huge fan of the bill as it stands at the moment - I think it was started with good intentions, but then along the way seemed to just lose its edge.
I hear you on that last point. I work for a major public university in the South, and we're about to enter a third consecutive year of not even receiving a cost of living increase on our salaries. We're being told it's for the good of the institution, we have to make sacrifices to the university can survive. So, nobody gets a cost of living increase, and nobody gets a raise.
I have no problem with that... except... the bigwigs who run the university found a loophole and figured out a way to give each other raises, so while us plebs sit around and hope the price of gas doesn't go up too much during hurricane season, they get to set aside a million bucks in each budget to cover their raises.
I think there are some parallels between that and the tax cut issue being debated at the moment: the people with the money get to make the rules, and the people making the rules are going to make damn sure they use that power to give themselves every advantage they can.
Where in the bill does it say you have to buy anything from the federal government?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Biased? What bias? The facts are the facts. The Republicans support tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the country. What's biased about that fact?
Maybe this latest article will shed some more light on the original one at the top of this thread:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... h-tax-cuts
Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts
Allies say president 'blackmailed' into extending tax cut for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue
Chris McGreal in Washington
The Guardian, Tuesday 7 December 2010
Barack Obama is bowing to Republican demands to extend a deep tax cut for wealthier Americans, to the fury of some of the president's allies who say he has succumbed to "blackmail".
In a bruising political battle that appears to set the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republicans in Congress following their victories in last month's midterm elections, the president had sought to extend a tax cut for middle-class Americans introduced by the Bush administration seven years ago which expires at the end of this month. But he wanted to see a return to pre-cut rates for households with an income above $250,000 a year, on the grounds that wealthier Americans could afford to pay more. The move would generate trillions of dollars for the financially-strapped treasury over the next decade.
The Democratic leadership believed that provided the middle class was looked after, the Republicans would find it difficult to justify tax cuts for the wealthy. The House of Representatives, still controlled by Democrats until the new Congress is sworn in next month, passed Obama's plan by a clear majority last week. But Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate at the weekend and said they would rather see everyone's taxes rise than agree to scrapping the cuts for the wealthy.
Some Democrats called on Obama to stand firm and let the Republicans carry the blame for the inevitable middle-class backlash. But leading Democrats say the president is backing down and has agreed to extend tax cuts for everyone. In return, the White House appears to have extracted an agreement to extend benefits for the long-term unemployed.
Today Obama said that his priority is to "prevent the middle-class tax increase" that would have come about if there was no agreement. "There's some serious debates that are still taking place. Republicans want to make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
"I have argued that we can't afford it right now. But what I've also said, we have to find consensus here because a middle-class tax hike would be very tough not only on working families, it would also be a drag on our economy at this moment," he said. "We've got to make sure we're coming up with a solution, even if it's not 100% of what I want or what the Republicans want."
Leading Democrats did not hide their frustration at the president's backtracking. Senator John Kerry, the former presidential candidate, accused Republicans of holding the country hostage.
"They've said, 'No, we are willing to hold that hostage so that we can give the wealthiest people in the country a bonus tax cut'," he said.
The outgoing House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is reported to have expressed deep unhappiness at the deal, saying the White House gave in too easily to Republican pressure. Richard Durbin, the second highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, said the agreement to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy was "against my judgment".
Paul Krugman, the Nobel economics prize winner, called on Obama to stand firm against the Republicans' "tax-cut blackmail" which will cost the US treasury $4 trillion in revenue over the next decade and prompt a "major fiscal crisis".
"If Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they'll just face more demands in the future. As long as Republicans believe that Mr Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they'll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America's fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown?" Krugman wrote in the New York Times.
But Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said that Obama had little choice but to make a deal.
"The Democrats generally haven't adjusted to the fact that they lost the election badly. That's fundamental and they haven't accepted it. Republicans designated maintaining tax cuts as their top priority," he said.
"The Republicans have pulled it off at the right moment. It's immediately after the election with two years to go before the next election. So the Republicans are getting to please their constituency which believes in that from top to bottom - not just the rich but their middle-class members - without suffering any real electoral consequences. That's why Obama caved. In the end, everybody's taxes would have gone up. Republicans would have held to this and blamed Obama."
Sabato said that the confrontation over taxes sets the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and an increasingly belligerent Republican leadership in the Senate next year.
"This is going to be a very inflexible Republican congress," he said.
In a statement from the White House last night, Obama sought to explain to the American people how he had come to agree to what many in his own party decried as a humiliating climbdown. He said that he had with regrets accepted compromise in order to spare millions of struggling Americans further pain in the form of rising taxes.
Obama made no attempt to disguise his contempt for the Republican position. He said he "completely disagreed" with their insistence that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two per cent of Americans were made permanent.
"Economists from all across the political spectrum believe giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to grow our economy."
But he said that he felt he had no option but to swallow that element in order to loosen the Republican stranglehold which would have seen two million Americans lose their unemployment benefits by the end of this month and millions more face rising taxes.
"What is abundantly clear to everybody in this town is that the Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans."
He conceded that the compromise would be unpopular equally among his supporters and opponents. But he said "I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington." "I think this is a symptom of the weakness that was produced November 2 which in turn was a symptom of the weakness produced by a bad economy and Obama's decisions."
If you aren't otherwise insured, you must purchase Obamacare or be penalized. Realistically, everyone will face those circumstances after private insurance becomes so expensive it's no longer a viable option for employers to offer it.
That's my primary beef with it - I think the government should've provided an affordable health insurance option and left it at that. I read yesterday that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care for its citizens - if that's true, then that's not exactly a statistic to brag about.
universal healthcare for everyone!
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
We have that in New Zealand and it works just fine - I never understood why half of America seems to think it's a crime against humanity. I'm not sure how yours works across the ditch, but we have a fun wrinkle in our system - if you're in an accident, the government will pay your medical costs... and the trade-off of that is you're not allowed to sue.
the primary problem is that because the government has been co-opted by large corporations ... it is inefficient and managing and administering these services ... the rule of thumb is that someone has to make a pretty penny in any policy which essentially removes the reason why gov't should handle it ...
all i know is the times ive been admitted to hospital... childbirth, industrial accident, corrective surgery and medical emergency(which required ambulance transport) ive been able to access services without worrying whether it was gonna cause financial hardship. it also means that when i need to attend a doctors surgery, which admittedly is extremely rare... but you know i do have kids, i can do so. and i dont have to wait until i have the money to pay... thereby nipping whatever illness that has arisen, in the bud. and avoiding more intensive and probably more expensive medical services.
the system isnt perfect and of course ive had surgery bumped cause it was considered nonessential and elective.
it is my opinion that if governments funded public health, which i consider absolutely essential, better then the problems seen would not disappear altogether but be less acute. were talking about the health of nations here. how is that not priority #1?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Because there are people out there in America who think a country can function perfectly well without a government. They don't want to pay taxes, and they assume that if they didn't, then a private company would come along and build their roads for them. Private companies would also put up traffic lights; and run schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, and air traffic control towers at airports.
These same people think that capitalism is a perfect solution, and that if the country was 100% capitalist then everything would be hunky-dory. Everybody would be able to go to privately-owned and -run schools and hospitals that were trying to make as much money as possible.
These same people however also can't understand why a company hell-bent on making as much money as possible would ever move its production overseas if it meant it could save on production costs.
To them, you should be out to make as much money as possible... as long as you don't find a cheaper way to do it that they don't like. And if you're providing a service that every other country on earth offers its citizens as a basic right, but you've priced some of your own citizens out of it because your sole goal is to make money, then it's the fault of the citizens who can't afford it because they're clearly too lazy to keep up.
In short, pure capitalism doesn't work in the real world any more than pure socialism does. But there are still people out there who don't see it that way - and a lot of those people think the government has no business making sure its citizens receive basic medical care.
Forced the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery to remove a video from an art exhibit (because Christians found it icky) by threatening to withhold funding if they didn't...
Denied a director tax breaks he was expected to receive for filming his movie in a certain state, because they felt his movie portrayed that state in a negative light...
And compared Obama's support of a bill that would give unemployment benefits to unemployed people to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I can't wait to see what's coming next. Maybe they'll try and ban chihuahuas because they find Mexican dogs offensive. They might try to ban Kwanzaa because some WMAs don't like it. They might compare Chanukah to the Holocaust, just for the hell of it.
They've invented a war on Christmas, it seems, to hide the fact that they're waging a war on common sense and perspective.
The war on Christmas is unfortunately real.
This is what's next.
Republicans Block U.S. Health Aid for 9/11 Workers
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/nyreg ... ss&emc=rss
1: Cutting Taxes
2: Cutting Spending
That's my primary beef with it - I think the government should've provided an affordable health insurance option and left it at that. I read yesterday that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care for its citizens - if that's true, then that's not exactly a statistic to brag about.[/quote]
universal healthcare for everyone![/quote]
Fine. YOU pay for it.
spending cuts usually start with the poor.
ask reagan.