joekerr's Comments (46)

“The problem is more systemic than just the modern day banking system. A lot of what’s wrong with the economy starts at home. I was watching a commercial on my huge TV the other day for a pizza chain. You could get 3 extra large pizzas for 5 bucks each. That started me thinking…how do you make a profit off a 5 dollar pizza? Who needs three huge pizzas? You figure with the cost of rental, the energy, the ingredients, labor and transportation costs, that this is an impossible equation. All those costs would have to be rock bottom and the labor super efficient and cheap. But yet as Americans, we demand that products are this cheap. Yet every time we make this demand, we are essentially draining our own pockets. It is us who work for beans an hour. We are the farmer who has to give away his crop at cutthroat prices. We are the consumer who buys more than they need. Wall Street may be greedy, but so are we. All these cheap, replaceable products directly impact our lives. We accept things like “planned obsolescence”. What we really need in this country is a return to quality, not quantity. So personally I am not surprised at all by the current environment. You think these bankers are greedy? Well they learned it at home.”

“Ahhh...finally someone who actually knows what the word partisan means! OMG! I was beginning to think I was the only one who ever looked the word up. I've always thought that the correct terminology for the two parties working together should be nonpartisan, as in NOT adherring stubbornly to a belief or idea. But currently I see no one in our current adminstration who could be defined as a nonpartisan, not even our Supreme Court judges, who should embody the very definition. This files in the face of a civil democracy or even a republic for that matter. No intelligent and reasonable person should ever hold firm in their convictions in the face of overwhelming facts. Personally, I think that if a public offficial can be described as being partisan, then that alone should effectively bar them from public service. Partisanship is NOT a good thing and it never should be. But alas, this is never to be and we will more than likely continue down the road of headbutting and namecalling, all in the name of whatever sets of ideas one worships and to **** with reasonable discourse and informed thinking.”

“Do you feel the same about water and power. Those are essentially a "service" and yet they come under strict government regualtions because they are esential to the well being of the populace. I cannot speak to why people become doctors, but if the driving goal is to make money, well that's just sad. It's akin to someone becoming a cop so they can shoot people. I would say that good health is a right, not a service and equal and affordable access to it should be a given. Healthier workers aer better producers and that's a simple fact. It is in America's best interest to provide certain things to its citizens regardless of their habits, race, background or goals. These should be shelter, food, water and healthcare. If you don't agree that the government shouldn't be involved in providing certain things, then I must ask you this. Do you like roads, police, telephones and sewer systems? Because all those things are government subsidized whether on the local or federal level. War too. So you'll pony up taxes for war and death but not for peace and life huh?”

“Non profit does not mean no profit. Almost all HMO's are non profit. Go figure. The definition of a non profit is essentially a organization that does "enrich" is share holders or directors. This does not mean that compensation is paltry or small.”

“I've seen that commercial and could only wonder...really? how much money and research was poured into this drug? Wouldn't the world and the labs that do the research be better served working on solutions to real problems? Never in my life have I heard, "My eyelashes are too short so I can't do that (whatever it is)" What possible advantage does this drug offer as compared to it's side effects? I've always thought that the credo of a physician was "Do no harm" But apparently making money off people's lack of self esteem and image issues doesn't fall under this motto. That's why medical issues and research shouldn't be run by a board of directors.”

“And I wonder how funny and charming it would have been if blacks had invaded europe, destroyed your culture, enslaved the best and the brightest, stripped them of all dignity and kidnapped them? Then brought them back to build the country and grow all the food and wiped all traces of their past, their family, their religion, their culture and their names from them and essentially turned them into cattle. Then 300 years later, mumble something about mistakes and begrudgingly granted them some rights and then expected them to catch up to a society that had a 300 year start on them. How funny it that? Your lack of empathy is startling and yet expected at the same time. I mean, how dare we complain right? You finally deigned to sorta, kinda let us stand on the same ground as you and you expect no bitterness, no rage? We should be grateful right? We shouldn't complain. So you get 300 plus years to castigate us, but we can never say a word about you? Jeebus.”

“Whoa! That sounds postively draconian to me! First off a soldier agrees to the training provided and can quit at any time. A dishonorable discharge is only as bad a thing as our society makes it. Why oh why would you want to impose your will on people? That can only lead to people trying to resist if only because you are trying to force them. And it also seems to be a bit of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But any doctor will tell you that's not true. While a one mile run a day may be good for me, it may be really bad for you, especially if you have weak knees or bad joints. Not eating foods high in fat may be good for you but for an athlete, not so much. Beware trying to homogenize humanity. I think you may ultimately find it unpalatable.”

“While I agree with a lot of your points, there is a part of me that doesn't like the tenor of your suggestions. While a lot of people are decrying the current plan as socialist, a lot of your suggestions reminded me instantly of the health care programs of communist countries. Forced exercise programs, mandated diets and sin taxes to me amount to a withdrawal of freedoms. If I want to be fat and lazy, that should still be my right. Now whether I should be punished for this or denied service is not for me to say, but I shirk at the idea of even starting down this road. I've had the unfortunate experience of being under one of those "wellness" programs and quite frankly it was horrible. Mainly because it paints everyone with broad strokes. While it is proven that smoking is bad for you, it doesn't kill everyone who smokes or impacts their lives. While a high sodium diet can make your heart basically explode, it doesn't always happen. And yet the wellness program demanded that everyone participate in these lifestyle changes, even when they were not needed. I like the baisc concept but I think you are treading in some murky waters when you seek to regulate or change people's daily lives. You know what they say...the road to *** is paved with good intentions.”

“But the government is already massively involved with our current system. In fact, the goverment is why HMO's and PPO's even exist! The government provided loans and grants to HMO's and even mandated that all employers with 25 or more employees give access to HMO's. The government itself spawned this current thing we call "health care" in this country. But get into the back rooms and you'll realize that it's really all about insurance. Most us get our health insurance through an HMO since going directly to a private doctor is not affordable. The way the HMO system makes it affordable is everyone prepays into the system whether they are using it or not. This creates a fund to cover costs and could clearly be called socialist, since we all pay the same for essentially different levels of care. The proposed system seeks to wrest this find away from private interest, which have no desire to spend this money, since their first rule is to return profits to the shareholders and instead puts it in the hands of doctors and hospitals to spend. So instead of a Blue Shield card and paying for some executives jet plane, you would now be paying for little Timmy to get an operation and that brilliant doctor who saved him to get access to more education and the hospital to get new beds. I understand that it's confusing as all getout which is why reform is needed now.”

“That's actually the smartest thing I've heard yet! But I fear that your idea is supposedly already in effect. Kaiser is a not for profit health care provider. Wait, I mean, "health management provider". Which doesn't sound all that happy happy joy joy to me. In fact Kaiser thought up the notion of prepaying for health care. And were helped by the federal government to "thrive" when Nixon signed the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. Which in turn makes all HMO's non profit. In fact the government is already paying for our healthcare in many ways. But the whole non profit idea is how we got here in the first place. But hey, the free market always makes the best decisions.”

“What merits are you talking about? Are you really suggesting that there isn't a need for health care reform? Are you also suggesting that loud angry yelling is a cogent way to debate the in and outs of what exactly needs to be done? Simply standing up and shouting things will not forward the debate in any way and in many cases shows a lack of understanding about the way our health care system functions as of now thus leading to articles like this one. And I happen to know a few people who are opposed to this health care reform simply based on the fact that they might have to pay for someone else's healthcare. And yet I haven't really seen where that's going to happen. Right now I pay taxes for numerous services such as streets, water and war, why not health care. If I can pay for death, why not life? And as for your third point, our current health care system is run by a disinterested corporate board of directors and the bureaucracy that supports them in the name of profit. I'd much rather be at the mercy of your scenario than the current one. At least it is within my power to affect a change in that system by voting, paying taxes and contacting public officials. As for now, you wouldn't even get a form letter back.”

“You don't believe what exactly? I'd love to have a conversation with you, but I need more than that!”

“I liked this post but I feel as if there is a missing dynamic that wasn't mentioned. And that is the fact that we have defined "sides". You know, the old "your with us or against us" mentality. Any time I get into a polical conversation with someone they consistently choose ONLY the democratic or republican mantra. There is no middle ground. Which to me is exactly the opposite of democracy. This isn't a football game and there are no clear winners or losers. That worldview is what is leading us down the slippery slope of a dualistic government where one side is "bad" and the other "good". I often find common ground with both sides of our existing political teams which in polite or impolite company is a definitive no no. I believe in a small government and yet at the same time believe that somethings are best left to government. I believe in a free market but also that there has to be oversight and accountability. I believe in the right to bear arms but not to arm yourself for all out war. I believe that you should have the right to choose but that choice affects many people. Our democracy is all about compromise and finding a common solution. It does appear some people believe that a win is win no matter how you get it. Perhaps we should all stop playing this like it is a game because the only losers in the end are us.”

“But you are talking about the 4th estate catering to the lowest common denominator. Conforming to mediocrity is not the job of the press. Nor is it to "dumb" down or offer an opposing viewpoint in all things. I'm not sure when this trend became some sort of actual rule but it seems arbitrary and not grounded in realism. The press is not a debate chamber and should not be treated as such. Secondly you say that simply because Joe holds vast influence, it changes the rules simply because of his position. I disagree with this notion as it implies that some people are more important than others and directly contradicts your statement that all voices be accorded equal opportunity. But don't get me entirely wrong, I do agree that perhaps plenty of people will take away the wrong impression from the show, but it seems to me that the other networks have ample opportunity to run their own stories with dissenting views. And if you cannot be an informed citizen then perhaps you will never be able to participate fully anyway. I for one am sick and tired of being dragged down because most Americans as a whole do not take the time to fully digest information and give nuanced responses instead of gut reactions.”

“I do not understand what all the hooplah is about. If I was to go interview Joe Shmoe about his plan to wax every car in the neighborhood, would I have to go get a dissenting opinion? And how exactly would that enrich the dialogue? It seems that many of the major news networks think that an American can't make up their own minds. Personally, I like to hear what someone has to say and make up my own opinion based on what I heard. I don't really need the foremost leading expert in whale spit to come on the show and repeat what I just heard and explain it to me. And maybe the administration decided to go with this particular network because they wanted to lay out their plan cogently, without a load of gotcha questions. For example, I can just hear some pundit now saying "Some people are saying (most commonly used opener for gotcha questions btw) that a public health care system is a step toward socialism, what do you have to say in response to these statements?". Those kind of questions are misleading and only slow down the consumption of real information, like how much will it cost, how will we pay for it, do we need it, etc. The false outrage is only because of the loss of an opportunity to sensationalize the debate.”

“Campaign contributions. Hmmm, that’s a tricky one. If everyone running for office was on a level playing ground, then I could see limiting the contributions and the types of individuals who do contribute. Personally, (and remember this is a personal opinion) I don’t think corporations should be considered people, or entities for that matter. A corporation has only one goal, and that is to increase the value of the shareholders profits. Period. That imperative directly conflicts with any loyalty to country or home. BUT on the other hand what if a candidate is cash poor, idea rich and he or she is up against another candidate with money to burn? We’ve all seen it happen, where essentially a candidate buys the election, simply by having more commercials, flyers and opportunity to broadcast a message. So while I would love the whole issue to be as cut and dried as “Don’t take contributions”, I think the only ones who would heed such a request would be the aforementioned candidate. And then we would be doomed to governed by the richest of us all and that just can’t be good. Is there a way to reform the system? For sure? Is there a way to reform the individuals who use that system? Much harder to say.”

“Errr....the tobacco industry was built on the backs of slave labor. I'm sure more than a few were killed, maimed and generally had their lives destroyed over this cash crop.”

“I fear you are misrepresenting my position. The very first sentence says I'm in favor of legalizing it. But the ramifications of America legalizing pot far outweigh the current benefit. It is not as simple as "Legalize, regulate, tax, and educate"! So tell me, how are we going to educate China? If we start growing the stuff, some of it will surely end up there, and how happy do you think they are going to be about that? Jeez, everyone is acting like we are the only country that matters in this decision. I haven't seen one single commentator mention the global implications of a major superpower going into the illegal drug trade. Imagine if China decided to legalize heroin? Or Columbia legalized cocaine. Like I said before, we've got to come up with a more nuanced and wellthought approach first. Not just grow it , tax it.”

“When I hear someone say “make pot legal”, the stoner in me completely agrees, but the more sensible side has a few problems with this. The tax it like cigarettes issue. Did you know that it’s illegal to grow tobacco in most places? That only major corporations and some Native American reservations can grow it? So if the government does get involved, you, me and this guy aren’t going to be ones doing it. The second thing is, it’s illegal in all other countries. All of them. Every single one. There is even a name for it. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Look it up, read it and weep. If we legalize pot, then we are going to find ourselves on the wrong side of a lot of countries, like China, who regularly KILLS people for possession of marijuana. So no, Obama didn’t just pass the question off. He laughed because it’s just not that simple folks. Don’t forget we belong to a larger world. It’s going to be a long, long time before pot is legal. And unless you want Phizer and all the drug companies to get even richer, I wouldn’t suggest the medical path either. That would make pot a pharmaceutical and thus could only be made by pharmaceutical companies. So put down the pipe and really think about it. We have got to come up with a better way.”

“I think you might be on to something even greater here than you think. It seems to me, that lately there has been an explosion in the proclivity to use hip-hop as a selling mechanism. Which is almost laughable, if it wasn’t so hypocritical. This is the same party that 20 years ago was trying everything in its power to crush the hip-hop movement. These are the people who brought us parental advisory stickers and do you remember Lynn Cheney? I do! Now that hip hop is billion dollar industry, all of a sudden it’s all good? Puhlease! Hip hop is a way of life, not a speaking style, and Mr. Steele would do well to remember that. Simply serving up some slang will not sway anyone to his side and it just might have the effect of alienating others who still equate hip hop with violence and drugs. So if you agree give a me double dap so I can go get a cheeseburger. A little off topic I know: ) but McD’s is even serving up some slang to get our money. I guess hip hop isn’t so broke anymore huh? You want our votes and you want our money….but never our ideas.”

“Nope, that's not delusional, that's just fact. The FBi has also investigated animal mutations, flying saucers, and reports of murder hit out on Kevin Federline. Does that make it true? The FBI does and should investigate any reports of voter fraud, no matter how ridiculous. You must be one of those who believes in guilty until proven innocent types. The fact that there is an ongoing investigation does not imply that there was any wrongdoing. And who is this "we" you are refering to? As in "So let them cheat, we'll just consider it another form of Affirmative Action.." Single middle age white males making more than 250,000 dollars a year? Sweet Jebus....”

“Well first off, ACORN is not a "liberal" group. Nor is it a "conservative" institution. ACORN is purely non-partisan, meaning that they are trying to help you, your family and your friends have the right to vote, regardless of party affliation. If the NRA was to go out and only sign up republicans, that would consitute voter fraud. You CANNOT discriminate or refuse an application to someone based on their political preference, race, creed, etc. So yes, I would have a huge problem with that. Your comparision is one couched in the double speak of someone trying to be a devil's advocate. Not all things can be argued this way, though many people try. If you can prove in some sort of deliberate way that ACORN was involved in the same scenario you present above, then you've got a leg to stand on. Minus that...you are just trying to be difficult and divisive, which serves no one.”

“Oops, bad math. Sorry, but heh, I learned it on Wall Street. Anyways, I think my point is still valid though. It was just the sheer immensity of the number that got me.”

“I know that this is an insane suggestion that will be meet with laughter but I'm going to say it anyway...What if we took that 700 billion dollars and split it between all 350 million Americans? What's that, 2 billion a person? Sounds crazy right? So what if we gave each American a million dollars instead. That's a far smaller price tag and it would directly benefit every person, rich and poor alike. IF your're rich, reinvest it. If your're poor, buy a house and put your kid through college. That should solve the mortgage crisis instantly. Every one could pay off their house and bills, and Bob's your uncle, bam bad debt gone...and at a bargain too! Now I'm sure some suit will say, "No, no that's not the way it works, you silly man", but why not? Are there really 700 billion dollars of bad mortgages out there? How is that even possible? It seems like perhaps we are bailing them out of EVERY bad decision they've (Wall Street) has made. So go ahead laugh....but what would YOU do with a million bucks?”

“Ok, so say I agree with your post. She has the same experience as Bill Clinton. What, pray tell me does that have to do with my comment? Is that your rebuttal? She has the same experience as Bill, so she can disparage a whole city of American's? She's got experience, so she doesn't have to talk about the real issues? She's got experience, so she can just lie about facts? Is that what her "experience" gets us? She's got experience, so she can belittle the actions of others? Come back when you actually have something to say.”