Edit Preferences
Logout
paulfree17's Comments (76)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 76
The Audacity of Greed
Commented Oct 15, 2009 at 13:04:43 in Politics
“The insurance companies state that if this bill passes premiums will go up. Well guess what!
As an employer I have seen premiums going up and benefits going down every year for the past 10 years. And this is without any healthcare reform.
The old saw that the only two things that are certain are death and taxes must add a third and fourth. Health care costs will go up and Insurance company's profits will go up.”
As an employer I have seen premiums going up and benefits going down every year for the past 10 years. And this is without any healthcare reform.
The old saw that the only two things that are certain are death and taxes must add a third and fourth. Health care costs will go up and Insurance company's profits will go up.”
philko replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 16:39:04
“BTW: The insurance industry has just announced that if you dare to make another post like this, premiums will increase.”
The Health Care Question Should Be About the Insurance Industry Stranglehold, Not a "Government Takeover"
Commented Sep 08, 2009 at 15:21:26 in Politics
“Last month I broke a rib and developed pneumonia. I was in the hospital for 4 nights during which time I received some paid medication, a cat scan and a couple of xrays as well as the usual blood tests. Not including the fees for the actual E/R doctors the hospital billed the insurance company close to $27,000. There was no surgery, no ICU 24 hour monitoring.
Now how much the insurance company is going to reimburse the hospital is anyone's guess but I would expect it to be maybe 50%. Of course to me it should look good since I have a $500 deductible.
What makes this interesting is that I am a business owner and I pay the premiums for my employees which have been through double digit increases each year for as long as I can remember. Now I care about health care reform because I pay 70% of the premiums for every employee. For those who have an employer paying their premiums they better just hope their employee can stay in business or they may need the "Public Option" sooner rather than later.”
Now how much the insurance company is going to reimburse the hospital is anyone's guess but I would expect it to be maybe 50%. Of course to me it should look good since I have a $500 deductible.
What makes this interesting is that I am a business owner and I pay the premiums for my employees which have been through double digit increases each year for as long as I can remember. Now I care about health care reform because I pay 70% of the premiums for every employee. For those who have an employer paying their premiums they better just hope their employee can stay in business or they may need the "Public Option" sooner rather than later.”
Peabodies replied on Sep 08, 2009 at 22:34:09
“We are the only country, paulfree, that saddles employers with the administrative costs of health care for their employees, and the only country where workers are indentured to their employers for health care.”
On Al Franken, Robert McNamara, and Running Against Joe Lieberman
Commented Jul 08, 2009 at 14:09:35 in Politics
“I hope you do not drive on the interstate highway system. I hope that you are not suffering from any disease being researched by the NIH. I hope you do not eat meat that is inspected by the FDA. I certainly hope you do not expect the National Guard to protect you in the event of flood, riot, hurricane etc.
I assume that all of your children go to private schools. I assume you have no need for police when you get robbed or firemen when your house is on fire. You certainly would never use a public library or ride public transportation.
Why is it perfectly okay for the government to provide all of these essential services but the thought of government provided healthcare, which most consider an essential service, drives so many people into an apocalyptic frenzy? .”
I assume that all of your children go to private schools. I assume you have no need for police when you get robbed or firemen when your house is on fire. You certainly would never use a public library or ride public transportation.
Why is it perfectly okay for the government to provide all of these essential services but the thought of government provided healthcare, which most consider an essential service, drives so many people into an apocalyptic frenzy? .”
Catch22isms replied on Jul 08, 2009 at 17:34:08
“Many of the groups you listed are all run by local or state gov't. Obviously the National Guard is not, but on a daily basis how often do most Americans deal with the national guard? The interstate system - really?
I have no children, but if I had the money, what's wrong with sending them to private schools? You can see how well the gov't is treating our education system.
Right now we have some of the highest quality health care in the world. It's expensive, yes. Nobody is saying the current system is great, but I guarantee it will be worse off if Uncle Sam starts calling the shots. Been to a VA hospital? Ever deal with paperwork for the bureacracy?”
I have no children, but if I had the money, what's wrong with sending them to private schools? You can see how well the gov't is treating our education system.
Right now we have some of the highest quality health care in the world. It's expensive, yes. Nobody is saying the current system is great, but I guarantee it will be worse off if Uncle Sam starts calling the shots. Been to a VA hospital? Ever deal with paperwork for the bureacracy?”
How the Prop 8 Ruling Will Help Gay Marriage
Commented May 27, 2009 at 13:07:45 in Politics
“Do not believe for a moment that either Obama or Biden are against gay marriage. Yes they said that during the campaign but they both would be totally content if the Supreme Court allowed gay marriage once and for all.
What you fail to realize is that at the national level if you come out for Gay marriage you were, at least in 2008 writing your political obituary. That may change but for now that is the fact. If Obama had come out in support of Gay marriage we would now have President McCain.
The same is true on many other issues including Gun Control. You cannot win at the national level if you support Gun Control either. That is unfortunate but it is called political reality. It is sad but true that to be an effective politician you have to get elected and to get elected you also have to compromise on issues that you may not agree with.”
What you fail to realize is that at the national level if you come out for Gay marriage you were, at least in 2008 writing your political obituary. That may change but for now that is the fact. If Obama had come out in support of Gay marriage we would now have President McCain.
The same is true on many other issues including Gun Control. You cannot win at the national level if you support Gun Control either. That is unfortunate but it is called political reality. It is sad but true that to be an effective politician you have to get elected and to get elected you also have to compromise on issues that you may not agree with.”
pat20ut replied on Jun 05, 2009 at 14:07:17
“so you voted for a liar? Is this change we can believe in?”
gotborked replied on May 27, 2009 at 15:25:55
“If you're right, you paint a sinister picture of Obama.--Someone who would lie to the American people about what his position is, rather than somone who would convince the people of the merits of his position.”
mko9d replied on May 27, 2009 at 14:58:57
“It's sad but true. And for that reason, I'm willing to be patient with Obama. I'm not happy that gay couples have to put their lives on hold just because some people out there aren't comfortable with the idea of gay marriage yet, but I know that public opinion is shifting dramatically. Obama has a lot on his plate right now, but I think he will be working to promote the rights of gays and lesbians, while at the same time preserving his political capital for more difficult battles.”
eichler1 replied on May 27, 2009 at 14:57:15
“"If Obama had come out in support of Gay marriage we would now have President McCain."
Well, at least briefly. ... then (cue scary music) "president" Palin!”
Well, at least briefly. ... then (cue scary music) "president" Palin!”
lalana replied on May 27, 2009 at 14:04:11
“Great response. Thanks”
jjjuice replied on May 27, 2009 at 13:47:55
“Exactly! Fanned!”
Why the California Court's Decision Is Good for Gay Marriage
Commented May 27, 2009 at 12:58:14 in Politics
“I can deny what you state are the facts.
First of all you are wrong to say it is biology since homosexual acts occur in almost every species on earth. For the purpose of procreation it does require a sperm and ovum so for that purpose you may be correct but that limits the concept of marriage to the purpose of procreation. Should we ban marriage between people who do not wish to procreate?
Love is emotional, not biological although emotions impact the physical and vice versa.
I get sexually aroused looking at attractive women. That is biology. It is also biology that some men get aroused looking at other men. This is also biology. Why do I react one way and other men react another way could be do to a number of factors from physical, to genetic, to emotional or other means. I can not control what I find arousing just as a homosexual cannot control what they find to be arousing. Again this is not just a human phenomenon.
As for heterosexuality being the basis of civiliation it may the basis for the continuation of the species but the first major demorcratic civilization was the ancient Greeks and if you are familiar with the term Greek Sex you know that they flourished quite a while despite a rather well know tolerance of what you consider abnormal.”
First of all you are wrong to say it is biology since homosexual acts occur in almost every species on earth. For the purpose of procreation it does require a sperm and ovum so for that purpose you may be correct but that limits the concept of marriage to the purpose of procreation. Should we ban marriage between people who do not wish to procreate?
Love is emotional, not biological although emotions impact the physical and vice versa.
I get sexually aroused looking at attractive women. That is biology. It is also biology that some men get aroused looking at other men. This is also biology. Why do I react one way and other men react another way could be do to a number of factors from physical, to genetic, to emotional or other means. I can not control what I find arousing just as a homosexual cannot control what they find to be arousing. Again this is not just a human phenomenon.
As for heterosexuality being the basis of civiliation it may the basis for the continuation of the species but the first major demorcratic civilization was the ancient Greeks and if you are familiar with the term Greek Sex you know that they flourished quite a while despite a rather well know tolerance of what you consider abnormal.”
How the Prop 8 Ruling Will Help Gay Marriage
Commented May 27, 2009 at 12:45:12 in Politics
“The thing about a constitution is that is designed to protect not only the democratic majority but minorities as well. Freedom of Speech is designed to enable the expression of minority or unpopular viewpoints without fear.
I am sure that had a referendum been placed on the ballot in 2001 to exile all Muslims from the US it could very well have passed in every state of the union.
What if they had a referendum in Utah to require everyone to tithe the Mormon church regardless of one's religion. Given the power of the church that could pass as well but it would still be unconstitutional.
I do not see how the majority can use the ballot to deny anyone's rights. You can pass laws that apply to actions but they would have to apply to all citizens equally. Yes a state may be able to ban drugs but they could not say ban drugs only for certain races, or religions. Laws and amendments have been passed expanding rights but this is in my recollection the first time a law was passed restricting rights to a group that had already been given those rights.
The right for women to vote, the right to have interracial marriages, the right to worship or not worship have never been repealed by the vote of a majority and that should not be allowed to happen in this case or against any group that may fall into popular disfavor at some point in the future.”
I am sure that had a referendum been placed on the ballot in 2001 to exile all Muslims from the US it could very well have passed in every state of the union.
What if they had a referendum in Utah to require everyone to tithe the Mormon church regardless of one's religion. Given the power of the church that could pass as well but it would still be unconstitutional.
I do not see how the majority can use the ballot to deny anyone's rights. You can pass laws that apply to actions but they would have to apply to all citizens equally. Yes a state may be able to ban drugs but they could not say ban drugs only for certain races, or religions. Laws and amendments have been passed expanding rights but this is in my recollection the first time a law was passed restricting rights to a group that had already been given those rights.
The right for women to vote, the right to have interracial marriages, the right to worship or not worship have never been repealed by the vote of a majority and that should not be allowed to happen in this case or against any group that may fall into popular disfavor at some point in the future.”
The Tortured Logic of the Torture Superfans
Commented Apr 23, 2009 at 17:22:57 in Politics
“If you tortured me until I told you that people I know were talking about blowing something up and then that something didn't blow up can you honestly say that the information I gave you stopped something from happening especially if I made it all up to get you to stop torturing me.”
The Tortured Logic of the Torture Superfans
Commented Apr 23, 2009 at 17:19:29 in Politics
“i thought we are supposed to be better than our enemies. Our goal should be to bring them up to our level not that we should stoop to theirs.”
The Story You Aren't Hearing About Israel
Commented Apr 13, 2009 at 17:51:02 in World
“Israel occupied no other country and lived within its mandated borders between 1948 and 1967. During that time it was attacked on at least 3 occasions before it was able to drive the attacking forces back in 1967.
And lest you forget in 1967 Israel also occupied the Sinai peninsula and after the courage of Sadat and Begin and the overt recognition if Israel by Egypt, Israel withdrew its forces from the Sinai. If the Palestinians want to find their own Sadat I am sure a similar arrangement could be worked out.
Besides , if the US was attacked and we sent troops to defend ourselves do you seriously think we would pull back all of our troops while the same people who attacked us were still in charge of the government?
Heck the US is still occupying Iraq and we will probably be in Afghanistan for a long haul. it is hypocritical to expect the US to defend itself while not expecting Israel to do the same.”
And lest you forget in 1967 Israel also occupied the Sinai peninsula and after the courage of Sadat and Begin and the overt recognition if Israel by Egypt, Israel withdrew its forces from the Sinai. If the Palestinians want to find their own Sadat I am sure a similar arrangement could be worked out.
Besides , if the US was attacked and we sent troops to defend ourselves do you seriously think we would pull back all of our troops while the same people who attacked us were still in charge of the government?
Heck the US is still occupying Iraq and we will probably be in Afghanistan for a long haul. it is hypocritical to expect the US to defend itself while not expecting Israel to do the same.”
Nanaama replied on Apr 13, 2009 at 20:19:05
“Please go back and read proper history books. After WW2,only about half a million european Jews were supposed to be resettled over a period of 3 years in Palestine which was under British Administration. In less than a year nearly twice that number has settled in Palestine, the majority illegally.Tthe attempts by the British to stop this illegal immigration led to a lot of terrorist acts against the British, resulting in the murder of a few British officials.Begin was one of the best known terrorist.”
zius replied on Apr 13, 2009 at 18:04:35
“we are not building illegal settlements and driving people out of their land.....
we need peace .....not outdated arguments”
we need peace .....not outdated arguments”
The Obama Economic Team's Flawed Cosmology: Still Believing the Universe Revolves Around the Banks
Commented Apr 07, 2009 at 11:41:23 in Politics
“Cutting Income taxes is the one answer the right has for every ill. First of all if one does not have income one does not pay taxes.
If you do have income you are always better off making more money regardless of the MARGINAL tax rate.
The fact that if taxes go up it will act as a disincentive is ridiculous. If I had the opportunity to increase my earnings from $500,000 to $1,000,000 the fact that that might move me into a higher tax bracket is not going to dissuade me from doing so. Even if the bracket was 50% it still would be I would be taking home an extra $250,000. Yet there are people I know who claim they do not want to work overtime or earn more money because it will move them into a higher bracket.
So I do not buy that cutting taxes is going to spur investment. It will continue to lead to higher deficits and reduced services which is exactly what we don't need when the social and economic safety net is being eroded.”
If you do have income you are always better off making more money regardless of the MARGINAL tax rate.
The fact that if taxes go up it will act as a disincentive is ridiculous. If I had the opportunity to increase my earnings from $500,000 to $1,000,000 the fact that that might move me into a higher tax bracket is not going to dissuade me from doing so. Even if the bracket was 50% it still would be I would be taking home an extra $250,000. Yet there are people I know who claim they do not want to work overtime or earn more money because it will move them into a higher bracket.
So I do not buy that cutting taxes is going to spur investment. It will continue to lead to higher deficits and reduced services which is exactly what we don't need when the social and economic safety net is being eroded.”
mike42nola replied on Apr 07, 2009 at 14:03:58
“You obviously have never really calculated how much you pay in taxes. Let's start of simple.
You earn $100 and are in a 22% bracket. That leaves you with $78 out of your hundred. You go buy $50 worth of gasoline leaving you with $28 left in your pocket and for the sake of this arguement let's say gas is $2 a gallon. Depending upon which state you live in you are paying anywhere from 28 to 49 cents per gallon. Let's pick the lower one. You bought 25 gallons of gas and paid $7 more dollars in taxes on that. Take the remaining $28 you have left and go for a really cheap dinner. The taxes on spending your remaining $28 would be about $3.30 depending once again where you live.
Now out of the $100 you earned you paid $32.30 in taxes, most of it hidden and unwilling.
The bigger issue is what do we really get for our money? Do you really feel that the taxes we pay for educating our kids is worth it? Do you really feel that the taxes that we already pay for our highways, roads and bridges is really worth it? Do you really thing that the taxes we already pay for our healthcare, welfare, or any other government service is worth the money we spend?
Repeal the federal income tax statute and demand a fair, equitable tax law be passed.”
You earn $100 and are in a 22% bracket. That leaves you with $78 out of your hundred. You go buy $50 worth of gasoline leaving you with $28 left in your pocket and for the sake of this arguement let's say gas is $2 a gallon. Depending upon which state you live in you are paying anywhere from 28 to 49 cents per gallon. Let's pick the lower one. You bought 25 gallons of gas and paid $7 more dollars in taxes on that. Take the remaining $28 you have left and go for a really cheap dinner. The taxes on spending your remaining $28 would be about $3.30 depending once again where you live.
Now out of the $100 you earned you paid $32.30 in taxes, most of it hidden and unwilling.
The bigger issue is what do we really get for our money? Do you really feel that the taxes we pay for educating our kids is worth it? Do you really feel that the taxes that we already pay for our highways, roads and bridges is really worth it? Do you really thing that the taxes we already pay for our healthcare, welfare, or any other government service is worth the money we spend?
Repeal the federal income tax statute and demand a fair, equitable tax law be passed.”
dairyair replied on Apr 07, 2009 at 13:12:58
“Great, give 75% of your money to the gov't. Then you will be very happy. I let you keep 25% for the little things you need that the gov't can't provide.”
"Pro-Life" Movement Admits Pro-Abortion Stance
Commented Feb 25, 2009 at 00:02:24 in Politics
“There is also an economic reason that the right is linked to the so called pro-life movement. It is the same reason that they attack illegal immigrants but have never passed true immigration reform. One of the easiest ways to keep poor people poor is to keep them having large families. By keeping a large supply of poor people keeps wages low.
If the poor were able to gain middle class status what would happen to corporate farms and hotels and other industries that rely on the poor and middle class for most of their labor?
Besides when you are poor then sex is probably one of the few pleasurable activities you can afford these days.”
If the poor were able to gain middle class status what would happen to corporate farms and hotels and other industries that rely on the poor and middle class for most of their labor?
Besides when you are poor then sex is probably one of the few pleasurable activities you can afford these days.”
Peji replied on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:52:52
“and don't forget cannon fodder! War is waged by the wealthy and fought by the poor.”
Initiating a Culture of Compensation
Commented Feb 17, 2009 at 16:20:54 in Media
“Their are two main ways that the news is paid for, advertising and subscriptions. In the case of most television news it iis all advertising and therein lies the true danger. When the dependence on advertisers flows over to the editorial pages and distorts even the basic news coverage there is a problem.
In a subscription driven publication the editorial position drives the subscriber rather than the other way around. Liberals and Progressives subscribe to the New Republic and the New York Times while conservatiives go more toward the National Review and the New York Post.
In an advertising driven publication the advertisers set the editorial policy and since most of the big advertising dollars come from big corporations this tends to favor a more conservative bent as is seen it today;s MSM especially on Television.
A few magazines maintain total editorial integrity by eschewing all advertising and being entirely subscription driven such as The Nation and Consumer Reports. It would be great to see a Subscription driven broadcast media that does not rely on advertising as a way of finally getting true editorial independence and have balance restored.”
In a subscription driven publication the editorial position drives the subscriber rather than the other way around. Liberals and Progressives subscribe to the New Republic and the New York Times while conservatiives go more toward the National Review and the New York Post.
In an advertising driven publication the advertisers set the editorial policy and since most of the big advertising dollars come from big corporations this tends to favor a more conservative bent as is seen it today;s MSM especially on Television.
A few magazines maintain total editorial integrity by eschewing all advertising and being entirely subscription driven such as The Nation and Consumer Reports. It would be great to see a Subscription driven broadcast media that does not rely on advertising as a way of finally getting true editorial independence and have balance restored.”
GOP Dogma Clouds Recovery Act Debate
Commented Feb 14, 2009 at 12:15:28 in Politics
“The republican idea is that the profit motive is what drives success. In many areas that can be correct but only if their is true competition. The monopolies created under the mega mergers of the last several years do not create competition only the illusion of competition.
In areas where spending is discretionary it is fine to foster competition but in areas that address basic human needs like roads, and health care it would be folly to rely strictly on the profit motive. We already have a for profit health care system run by insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and HMO's that have priced many individuals and small businesses out of health care coverage. A for profit road system would restrict who would be able to ride on certain roads. We have public schools based on the fact that everyone pays for them.
We cannot run an entire country on the profit motive. There are basic services that we have deemed are the role of government and should not be farmed out to the highest bidder. That also includes subcontracting our Military support to the likes of Haliburtan and Blackwater.”
In areas where spending is discretionary it is fine to foster competition but in areas that address basic human needs like roads, and health care it would be folly to rely strictly on the profit motive. We already have a for profit health care system run by insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and HMO's that have priced many individuals and small businesses out of health care coverage. A for profit road system would restrict who would be able to ride on certain roads. We have public schools based on the fact that everyone pays for them.
We cannot run an entire country on the profit motive. There are basic services that we have deemed are the role of government and should not be farmed out to the highest bidder. That also includes subcontracting our Military support to the likes of Haliburtan and Blackwater.”
Konnie replied on Feb 15, 2009 at 15:00:27
“Nobles Oblige - the obligations of the nobility. In America business kings replaced the kings of old .
In the beginning the business leaders would join together and build schools, hospitals, and roads. They knew that a civilized society was good for business (republicans mostly - who knew!)
They were content to make A profit. They were content to have the fanciest houses in town, and
the ones driving the shiny new buicks.......Then they got greedy.........
they had to have it all, they had to go after the golden goose.
well now that they have chased the ever cheaper labor dollar to where ever that is today,
and dismantled the middle class everywhere in its wake (see the world), they have learned the hard way there is no one left to pay for their products.
I will settle for nothing less than seeing every one of those bankers and wall street management staffs in
prison. i will settle for nothing less than the government confiscating every asset, bank account,house car, toy and bread crumb. i want their families on street corners begging
for food since they enjoyed their spouses and parents ill-gotten gains too. then i want
it sold and given to the person on the bottom of the list who lost the smallest amount.
then go up that list - you know the one "-i-ninety-years-old-i-lost-my-life-savings-and i-am-trying-to-get-a-job-at-walmart" list. put me in charge of that!”
In the beginning the business leaders would join together and build schools, hospitals, and roads. They knew that a civilized society was good for business (republicans mostly - who knew!)
They were content to make A profit. They were content to have the fanciest houses in town, and
the ones driving the shiny new buicks.......Then they got greedy.........
they had to have it all, they had to go after the golden goose.
well now that they have chased the ever cheaper labor dollar to where ever that is today,
and dismantled the middle class everywhere in its wake (see the world), they have learned the hard way there is no one left to pay for their products.
I will settle for nothing less than seeing every one of those bankers and wall street management staffs in
prison. i will settle for nothing less than the government confiscating every asset, bank account,house car, toy and bread crumb. i want their families on street corners begging
for food since they enjoyed their spouses and parents ill-gotten gains too. then i want
it sold and given to the person on the bottom of the list who lost the smallest amount.
then go up that list - you know the one "-i-ninety-years-old-i-lost-my-life-savings-and i-am-trying-to-get-a-job-at-walmart" list. put me in charge of that!”
Bipartisanship Fetishism vs. What's Best for America: Obama Needs to Choose
Commented Feb 10, 2009 at 20:24:11 in Politics
“They are not raising taxes to pay for this stimulus. They are cutting taxes so I would extend my previous argument that not only should they not get the money but we should not cut the taxes of those in their district. There is no tax increase in this bill.”
bighat replied on Feb 10, 2009 at 23:55:33
“As your last comment suggest maybe we should pick 2 to 4 states to be lab rats.
Assume 4 states but i would be happy with 2.
Let the 2(4) states receive the stimulus package and all benefits and taxes to go with it.
Let the 2(4)states receive none of the stimulus package (Ibelieve you referred to them a s blue state or blue districts.
Then we will see what happens.
I suggest Californai and New York as blue states and Texas and Florida as the states without govt oversight and great entrepenuers to be the blue test states.
Let the red states go with all the regulation congress can think of and the red test states survive with no federal mandates or guidelines (excep to pay for defense based on population in TX and Florida versus Ca and New York
let regulation or free enterprise tell us where we would be beter off.
Populatons shifts (whether they leave the states or join would be worth the cost)”
Assume 4 states but i would be happy with 2.
Let the 2(4) states receive the stimulus package and all benefits and taxes to go with it.
Let the 2(4)states receive none of the stimulus package (Ibelieve you referred to them a s blue state or blue districts.
Then we will see what happens.
I suggest Californai and New York as blue states and Texas and Florida as the states without govt oversight and great entrepenuers to be the blue test states.
Let the red states go with all the regulation congress can think of and the red test states survive with no federal mandates or guidelines (excep to pay for defense based on population in TX and Florida versus Ca and New York
let regulation or free enterprise tell us where we would be beter off.
Populatons shifts (whether they leave the states or join would be worth the cost)”
bighat replied on Feb 10, 2009 at 22:27:49
“All the othe comments do not want tax cutting as it seems to be republican”
Bipartisanship Fetishism vs. What's Best for America: Obama Needs to Choose
Commented Feb 10, 2009 at 18:18:44 in Politics
“To all those who criticize government spending as pork and government jobs as not real jobs, I would like to ask you to spend one year doing the following.
1. Stay off all public streets and interstates.
2. Do not call the fire department or police department if your home is on fire or you are assaulted.
3. Do not send your children to public school or university.
4. Take only medication that has not been tested by the FDA
5. Eat only meat that does not have a USDA sticker on it.
6. Put your money only into institutions that are not FDIC insured
7. Do not file for unemployment if you lose your job. Do not file for disability or worker's comp if you are injured.
8. Do not under any circumstance visit a local, state or national park.
9. You must ignore any warnings put out regarding hurricanes, tornadoes or other disasters.
10. Do not use any public hospital.
I am sure that there are other services you can do without.”
1. Stay off all public streets and interstates.
2. Do not call the fire department or police department if your home is on fire or you are assaulted.
3. Do not send your children to public school or university.
4. Take only medication that has not been tested by the FDA
5. Eat only meat that does not have a USDA sticker on it.
6. Put your money only into institutions that are not FDIC insured
7. Do not file for unemployment if you lose your job. Do not file for disability or worker's comp if you are injured.
8. Do not under any circumstance visit a local, state or national park.
9. You must ignore any warnings put out regarding hurricanes, tornadoes or other disasters.
10. Do not use any public hospital.
I am sure that there are other services you can do without.”
INLO1950 replied on Feb 11, 2009 at 10:28:39
“First of all there is a difference between local, state, and federal spending, but people refuse to differentiate.
But most important is for the last 40 years the federal government has refused to budget in the sense you and I have to and unfortunate many have learned to act like they are the federal government.
Our fellow Americans have run up debt, not because they needed to but because they wanted to. We don't need two big screen TV's, two computers, six phones, etc. etc. And don't forget the interest only flexible rate mortgage. Oh, we have helped create jobs with our consumerism, but the debt.
Just like the lady asking the President for a house and car Congress can't pass up a 'need'. Paulfree17 do we really need massive spending at our national parks? If people are hurting for work will they visit the park, or are you suggesting the improvements are needed to build tent cities like in the 1930's?
I am sorry that lady needs a home, but did you notice the distinction between her and the guy working at McDonalds. She got a kiss and now a place to stay. The guy working got the promise of a $100 withholding tax cut.
All I have ever asked is that Congress appreciate just a little the money I send to them and not rip it from hand and then demand for more.”
But most important is for the last 40 years the federal government has refused to budget in the sense you and I have to and unfortunate many have learned to act like they are the federal government.
Our fellow Americans have run up debt, not because they needed to but because they wanted to. We don't need two big screen TV's, two computers, six phones, etc. etc. And don't forget the interest only flexible rate mortgage. Oh, we have helped create jobs with our consumerism, but the debt.
Just like the lady asking the President for a house and car Congress can't pass up a 'need'. Paulfree17 do we really need massive spending at our national parks? If people are hurting for work will they visit the park, or are you suggesting the improvements are needed to build tent cities like in the 1930's?
I am sorry that lady needs a home, but did you notice the distinction between her and the guy working at McDonalds. She got a kiss and now a place to stay. The guy working got the promise of a $100 withholding tax cut.
All I have ever asked is that Congress appreciate just a little the money I send to them and not rip it from hand and then demand for more.”
OswegoKayaker replied on Feb 10, 2009 at 18:46:54
“YES! Plus eat lots of peanuts that came from deregulated places like Peanut Corp. of America. I am sure a lot of people in Georgia are pretty unhappy right now and wish that W had never given deregulation such a big push.”
OldKnute replied on Feb 10, 2009 at 18:33:29
“Yeeeeeeeee!!!!
Right ON! Paulfree!
This Mantra of “Tax Cuts”,,, “Taxes Bad” has to stop!
Anti-Progress, Anti-Science, Anti-Education,,,, PRO,,,,Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Business is NOT working!
Sorry, but fair taxes and a combined willingness to bear the burden of ordered development has built America. OUR America!
>> Knute dances a jig! Yeeeeeeee! SPOT ON!
You are sooooo on target Paul,,,, it was not easy,,,, but we did it,,, together!
All the best
Knute”
Right ON! Paulfree!
This Mantra of “Tax Cuts”,,, “Taxes Bad” has to stop!
Anti-Progress, Anti-Science, Anti-Education,,,, PRO,,,,Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Business is NOT working!
Sorry, but fair taxes and a combined willingness to bear the burden of ordered development has built America. OUR America!
>> Knute dances a jig! Yeeeeeeee! SPOT ON!
You are sooooo on target Paul,,,, it was not easy,,,, but we did it,,, together!
All the best
Knute”
bighat replied on Feb 10, 2009 at 18:33:10
“Might be too hard to impose on a nation as the people of the nation have already paid for the things you descirbe. However, maybe a state could be nominated to go with out federal money and federal regulaton with a contributribution to national defense based on population”
Bipartisanship Fetishism vs. What's Best for America: Obama Needs to Choose
Commented Feb 10, 2009 at 18:11:03 in Politics
“The best idea I have heard is to put a provision that stimulus money can only be spent in districts whose congress person supported the bill and no money to states where both Senators oppose the bill.
Obviously those who are voting against the bill are listening to their constituents telling them that all is fine and they do not need more jobs and infrastructure improvements. So let's spend the money where those in congress represent people who need jobs and infrastructure.”
Obviously those who are voting against the bill are listening to their constituents telling them that all is fine and they do not need more jobs and infrastructure improvements. So let's spend the money where those in congress represent people who need jobs and infrastructure.”
bighat replied on Feb 10, 2009 at 18:21:03
“I agree if these same districts do not have pay tax on the money that the stimuls will cost”
Get Ready to Rumble: The Fight for the Next Economy Begins
Commented Jan 28, 2009 at 05:11:04 in Politics
“Many of the people you mentioned have voted or verbally come out in favor of a higher tax bracket. Warren Buffet himself has said he and the rich should pay more taxes. Bloomberg works as mayor for $1 per year and donated $450 Million to charity. There are rich people who do feel it is okay to contribute to others via taxes or charity.
Then again there are the wall street execs who buy corporate jets and $1500 waste paper baskets with money taken from citizens who may earn as little as $20K per year.”
Then again there are the wall street execs who buy corporate jets and $1500 waste paper baskets with money taken from citizens who may earn as little as $20K per year.”
dems08 replied on Jan 28, 2009 at 05:37:12
“Touche'!”
Too Big to Succeed
Commented Jan 24, 2009 at 10:25:39 in Business
“My business started with National Community Bank which was bought by Summitt which was bought by UJB which was bought by Fleet which was bought by Bank of America.
We also had an account at Merrill Lynch which was bought by Bank of America. So now all of our money is at Bank of America though it did not start out that way.
In other areas Exxon Mobile merge. GM and Chrysler talk merger. AOL and TIme Warner Merge. Disney and ABC merge. GE buys NBC.
How long until the Fortune 500 becomes the Fortune 5?”
We also had an account at Merrill Lynch which was bought by Bank of America. So now all of our money is at Bank of America though it did not start out that way.
In other areas Exxon Mobile merge. GM and Chrysler talk merger. AOL and TIme Warner Merge. Disney and ABC merge. GE buys NBC.
How long until the Fortune 500 becomes the Fortune 5?”
The Tone of Washington
Commented Jan 21, 2009 at 17:02:06 in Politics
“Heck you must be right. Obama has now been president for 24 hours and the Republicans have not begun impeachment hearings. Truly a new day is dawning.”
TVA Disaster Spreads Far and Wide
Commented Jan 13, 2009 at 13:31:22 in Green
“I am sure there are some in those Oil Company and right wing think tanks trying to figure out how to get exclusive rights to wind and sunshine.
As stated in the book of Proverbs:
"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind"
and that is what Big Oil would love to do.”
As stated in the book of Proverbs:
"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind"
and that is what Big Oil would love to do.”
Bush's Last Month Sees Unemployment Hit 22%, According to Wingnuttia's Math
Commented Jan 12, 2009 at 13:21:51 in Politics
“I just want to take issue with a statement you made. You say "that people who work for the government - people who build bridges, roads, airports, etc. - are actually welfare cases who shouldn't be counted as employed".
While there are millions who do work for the government and get a paycheck from the government, the vast majority of people who work on public works projects are not government employees. They are employed by contractors who get government contracts but they are very definitely private sector employees.
I do not know if your estimate of 22 Million government workers includes those who are working on government contracts. Obviously if you include people who work for companies that do most of their contract work for the government then that would greatly impact that number.
I still understand the point you are making as it relates to unemployment numbers but to say that jobs created as a result of government spending on infrastructure are government jobs is misleading.”
While there are millions who do work for the government and get a paycheck from the government, the vast majority of people who work on public works projects are not government employees. They are employed by contractors who get government contracts but they are very definitely private sector employees.
I do not know if your estimate of 22 Million government workers includes those who are working on government contracts. Obviously if you include people who work for companies that do most of their contract work for the government then that would greatly impact that number.
I still understand the point you are making as it relates to unemployment numbers but to say that jobs created as a result of government spending on infrastructure are government jobs is misleading.”
Frozen Ice Balls and the Bush Legacy
Commented Jan 05, 2009 at 17:56:30 in Politics
“""and in an "other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the show?" kind of way, keeping the country safe from terrorism after the attacks of September 11th."
Well he was the President on 9/11 so saying he kept us safe after the attacks is like someone taking credit for not beating their wife anymore.
Bill Clinton kept us safe for almost 8 years from the first WTC attack in February of 1993 through January of 2000. He did it without invading another country, ignoring the Constitution, torturing prisoners, or destroying the economy.”
Well he was the President on 9/11 so saying he kept us safe after the attacks is like someone taking credit for not beating their wife anymore.
Bill Clinton kept us safe for almost 8 years from the first WTC attack in February of 1993 through January of 2000. He did it without invading another country, ignoring the Constitution, torturing prisoners, or destroying the economy.”
Pssst, the Economy Is Collapsing -- Don't Tell Congress
Commented Jan 05, 2009 at 17:43:03 in Business
“The fault with this comment is that it does not take into effect that when the government spends money most of the money goes into the private sector. When we build things like roads, hospitals and schools the work is done by private contractors who create private jobs.
Even our defense spending that does not go to the soldiers and staff goes to private companies like Boeing, McDonald Douglas and other companies that build our weapon systems and yes even Haliburton which charges more to provide services then government employees would be paid.
The fact is that whether you are a government employee who winds up spending their paycheck in the private sector or a government contractor who provides service to the government almost all of the money spent by the government winds up stimulating the private sector. The paycheck earned by a public school teacher or a nurse or a policeman or any other civil service position is spent in the private sector. If the government did not spend this money these people would be unemployed. This would create greater unemployment and a decreased wage as job opportunities became more scarce. Government payments for unemployment and Medicaid would increase. So government spending is really no different then private sector spending. We pay for things through taxes or through our wallet in either case but it all stimulates the private sector”
Even our defense spending that does not go to the soldiers and staff goes to private companies like Boeing, McDonald Douglas and other companies that build our weapon systems and yes even Haliburton which charges more to provide services then government employees would be paid.
The fact is that whether you are a government employee who winds up spending their paycheck in the private sector or a government contractor who provides service to the government almost all of the money spent by the government winds up stimulating the private sector. The paycheck earned by a public school teacher or a nurse or a policeman or any other civil service position is spent in the private sector. If the government did not spend this money these people would be unemployed. This would create greater unemployment and a decreased wage as job opportunities became more scarce. Government payments for unemployment and Medicaid would increase. So government spending is really no different then private sector spending. We pay for things through taxes or through our wallet in either case but it all stimulates the private sector”
Veri replied on Jan 05, 2009 at 20:00:01
“Forgot to add that every dollar towards defense buys weapons. These weapons, once expended, have actually destroyed wealth. You cannot recover that explosives or munitions. Even a downed aircraft is not fully recoverable. This is a destruction of raw, material wealth, not to placed back into the system.
War is the greatest single destroyer or real, tangible wealth. And the greatest single creator and transference of imaginary wealth (money) to a few at the expense and lives of the many.
In addition, consumers drive the economy, not spending on the military. There is a correlation between increased military spending and decreased societal wealth. Guns, or butter?”
War is the greatest single destroyer or real, tangible wealth. And the greatest single creator and transference of imaginary wealth (money) to a few at the expense and lives of the many.
In addition, consumers drive the economy, not spending on the military. There is a correlation between increased military spending and decreased societal wealth. Guns, or butter?”
Veri replied on Jan 05, 2009 at 19:20:40
“For this to work, the money must remain in the economy. Since America produces so little in the way of manufacturing, the money will be globalized. Every dollar that leaves America is wealth transferred to another nation. No longer available to stimulate the economy.
To get that dollar back, America must produce something of real value and exchange it for that dollar in foreign hands. Dollars are imaginary wealth. They are actually debt owed to The Fed. So, not only must you buy back that dollar from a foreign bank, you then must pay The Fed for allowing you to have that dollar.
Ooops.”
To get that dollar back, America must produce something of real value and exchange it for that dollar in foreign hands. Dollars are imaginary wealth. They are actually debt owed to The Fed. So, not only must you buy back that dollar from a foreign bank, you then must pay The Fed for allowing you to have that dollar.
Ooops.”
The Strange Case of Claus Von Stauffenberg and Valkyrie
Commented Jan 05, 2009 at 14:58:47 in Entertainment
“The differences between then and now is that today there would have been a suicide bomber.
There were 15 unsuccessful attempts on the life of Hitler according to the scroll at the end of the movie. Obviously none-successful. One wonders how the Third Reich got as far as it did if those who worked from within could not even kill one person.
If there were so many German's who really wanted Hitler dead why couldn't one of these Generals or Colonels at Wolf's lair just pulled out a gun and shoot him. Where were the suicide assassins when you needed them?”
There were 15 unsuccessful attempts on the life of Hitler according to the scroll at the end of the movie. Obviously none-successful. One wonders how the Third Reich got as far as it did if those who worked from within could not even kill one person.
If there were so many German's who really wanted Hitler dead why couldn't one of these Generals or Colonels at Wolf's lair just pulled out a gun and shoot him. Where were the suicide assassins when you needed them?”
viewfromuphere replied on Jan 07, 2009 at 14:56:52
“it wasn't that simple...Hitler as time went on got more difficult to get to...he'd changed schedules last minute for example. I don't know if one of the 15 attempts noted in the film was Speer's plan to drop gas into Hitler's berlin bunker but on the day he was going to attempt this...there were new filters installed and his opprotunity was lost.
Keep in mind, it's been demonstrated that had the bomb not been moved or the meeting not moved ...Hitler would have died from Stauffenburg's bomb.
That was demonstrated by the physical recreation of the attempt by explosive experts, engineers and historians.”
Keep in mind, it's been demonstrated that had the bomb not been moved or the meeting not moved ...Hitler would have died from Stauffenburg's bomb.
That was demonstrated by the physical recreation of the attempt by explosive experts, engineers and historians.”
Cheney's Legacy Project and the Return of the Media Cringe
Commented Jan 05, 2009 at 09:42:47 in Media
“If someone were to really question Cheney they would have to be afraid of
rendition or being water boarded or at least being placed on the no-fly list.”
rendition or being water boarded or at least being placed on the no-fly list.”
1 - 25 of 76
