BarryR is not alone , there are more idiots

[Spider]

:rofl: I am siting in Tomah Wisconsin , waiting on permits , got the CB on listening to the chatter , politics came up , one guy actually believes, that the New Healthcare plan will not cover whites , Obama wants to replace all the white CEO's with back ones ....... I keyed up and had to ask , Hey , are you a broncofan known as BarryR or Bob ?
He said no , I said thats amazing , I thought they was alone on planet crazy .......

[ghwk]

What was his response to that?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Was it broncofan7?

[Spider]

What was his response to that?

;D nothing .........

[barryr]

Another idiot thread started by the toothless wonder. Next, a thread what he had for breakfast and had to soften since his gums are too sensitive. Lay off the meth already.

[Dudeskey]

Lay off the meth already.

You oughta read up on DOT rule 49 CFR part 40 before spewing out your trademark ad hominem bs...™

[Spider]

Another idiot thread started by the toothless wonder. Next, a thread what he had for breakfast and had to soften since his gums are too sensitive. Lay off the meth already.
was it something I said ?

[Spider]

You oughta read up on DOT rule 49 CFR part 40 before spewing out your trademark ad hominem bs...™

;D it is BarryR , he wouldnt know DOT from county sheriff

[Bob]

:rofl: I am siting in Tomah Wisconsin , waiting on permits , got the CB on listening to the chatter , politics came up , one guy actually believes, that the New Healthcare plan will not cover whites , Obama wants to replace all the white CEO's with back ones ....... I keyed up and had to ask , Hey , are you a broncofan known as BarryR or Bob ?
He said no , I said thats amazing , I thought they was alone on planet crazy .......

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, to legit ones like supporting a system that is already trillions in debt -- ie Medicare in order to dismiss various auguments --

[barryr]

You oughta read up on DOT rule 49 CFR part 40 before spewing out your trademark ad hominem bs...™

Yeah hypocrite, we'll see you make this same suggestion to those you agree with. Oh, you never do, how shocking. I don't recall starting idiot threads with the sole purpose to personally attack members in forums, but it's ok with you as long as you typically agree with their points. Hypocrisy at its finest. :wave:

[barryr]

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, to legit ones like supporting a system that is already trillions in debt -- ie Medicare in order to dismiss various auguments --

This is his usual tactic, among other liberals. Also, as one can see, they are normally weak-minded, so typically do all they can to generate help from like-minded in attacking those they don't agree with and can't come up with legit points other than talking points from lefty blogs. This explains the threads that are only started to attack forum members. I doubt this genius could even tell you why he supports Obama's healthcare plan without finding out what those objective sites such as dailykos or huffington says why he should.

[Spider]

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, to legit ones like supporting a system that is already trillions in debt -- ie Medicare in order to dismiss various auguments --

LOL , dude you have concerns , but they are so miss placed , it makes you look like a whack job ...... seriously ..... Just like the FDR thread , you get all of your info from some right wing nut job and take it as gospel ..... Or that one one about Obama wanting a big bank to fail in order to take control over everything .... It is **** like that , that makes everyone lump you into BarryR category

[Spider]

This is his usual tactic, among other liberals. Also, as one can see, they are normally weak-minded, so typically do all they can to generate help from like-minded in attacking those they don't agree with and can't come up with legit points other than talking points from lefty blogs. This explains the threads that are only started to attack forum members. I doubt this genius could even tell you why he supports Obama's healthcare plan without finding out what those objective sites such as dailykos or huffington says why he should.

LOL ..... you are a certified nut job ......

[spdirty]

Lisa is a much better trucker than spider (duck, put on throat protection, insert smiley) ;D

[frerottenextelway]

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, to legit ones like supporting a system that is already trillions in debt -- ie Medicare in order to dismiss various auguments --

Your last thread alledged that Obama wants and is trying to make the country fail.

I got nothing against conservatism, other than I think it's a bad philosphy, and the George Will's of the world make a good debate and bring ideas to the table that are worthwhile to listen to.

But the Obama was born in Kenya, Obama wants to the country to fail, Obama is a black panther, Obama (w/e crazy theory) is all the same. It's looney-bin trash. It's Gaffney 9-11 type stuff.

[Bob]

LOL , dude you have concerns , but they are so miss placed , it makes you look like a whack job ...... seriously ..... Just like the FDR thread , you get all of your info from some right wing nut job and take it as gospel ..... Or that one one about Obama wanting a big bank to fail in order to take control over everything .... It is **** like that , that makes everyone lump you into BarryR category

But its FDR's own words that condemn him, its not a "one source" type of thing -- he was the one proposing a second bill of rights and it is a historical fact. I have the wild notion that the implications of confusing "rights" with wants (that can only come through hard work) is what can bankrupt this nation. My crazy philosophy (based on Founding Father ideals) leads me to conclude that to force/manipulate equal results to all humans with unequal talents who put forth unequal effort is not only illogical, but it can lead to tyranny.

You can think I am a whack job, it’s your right, but I don’t think my views are so radically different from what the Founding Fathers believed on a whole number of issues -- so what may be at the very core of the Nation’s founding documents is increasingly “radical” not because my views are straying, but because they are consistent to them. I respect your views Spider, I always have – and sometimes rethink my own thoughts based on what I read around here. Sometimes I am very wrong (like I was in my thinking that R’s didn’t spend as much as D’s.) But anyway, I wish you the best…

[cutthemdown]

It cracks me up when truckers start talking regulations like it makes them smart. Ditch diggers know how to dig a ditch better then me also but I still don't care.

DOT reg what? LOL like that would stop truckers from doing Meth. Spider however does not do Meth he is a family man..........So that means he drinks heavily and probably hasn't had sex he is really excited about in yrs.........except for that perty lil thing on route 40 in Okla, that he dumped in New Mexico on his way back to Wyoming.

As far as Obama being born in the USA? Funny stuff that really doesn't matter once you have a birth certificate a state will say is legal. If that happens I say you are an American because we set things up so if you are really good at breaking the law you get away with it.

Ruin the country though? Naw he thinks what he wants is best for the country just like Bush though getting rid of Saddam was the best for the country.

As far as Obama being a black panther I heard they turned him down because after all he is half white.

[cutthemdown]

Also as bad as Presidents can be we set it up so the don't even last a decade. IMO it would take more then 8 yrs of bad decisions to ruin the country.

If anything people will vote repubs into the Congress very soon to counter the dem majority. Americans usually get nervous when one party has too much power. Or it could be running the country just a cluster**** and when you do get power you are bound to lose it. The job of keeping AMericans happy might just be impossible.

[Bob]

Your last thread alledged that Obama wants and is trying to make the country fail.

I got nothing against conservatism, other than I think it's a bad philosphy, and the George Will's of the world make a good debate and bring ideas to the table that are worthwhile to listen to.

But the Obama was born in Kenya, Obama wants to the country to fail, Obama is a black panther, Obama (w/e crazy theory) is all the same. It's looney-bin trash. It's Gaffney 9-11 type stuff.

I see your point, how could anyone want it to fail? But what part of America's past does he want to fail? So far it has been the small businessman, a solid dollar, and an increasing number of Liberties. I think he is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If Obama feels that pain can change healthcare, clean the environment, and increase his powerbase, I don’t think he is beyond it. But his actions don’t make any sense to me if he wants to reduce unemployment for the next several years. By going after private companies, and taking them over and replacing CEO's he gains more control over the means of production -- which may be of more long-term value to him. Will cap and trade create jobs or loose them? -- its freaking intent is to reduce gases that come from production. Don’t you find any of his actions concerning?

I think Obama sees government as the solution to many more problems than I do -- so yes, I do think that this administration can only transform the economy quickly (in ways that are not rooted in our history, or justified by the limits prescribed in the Constitution) before the next election cycle unless there is an equal crisis -- if unemployment is high, and we are having other economic problems. IF you believe that America's system is better off if it is transformed into something Socialist, then how else would one accomplish this monumental undertaking? Its logical -- the ends justifies the means.

I think the end-game will have horrific implications in reduced Liberties, than most realize at this point -- but by then, will be very hard to dismantle, and the increased executive power will go to an R (and most R's will take the power and abuse it as well) Very, very few would respect the power of the people, and give it back to the people.

[Bob]

Also as bad as Presidents can be we set it up so the don't even last a decade. IMO it would take more then 8 yrs of bad decisions to ruin the country.

If anything people will vote repubs into the Congress very soon to counter the dem majority. Americans usually get nervous when one party has too much power. Or it could be running the country just a cluster**** and when you do get power you are bound to lose it. The job of keeping AMericans happy might just be impossible.

Two issues if R's get back into office:

1.) what will these new guys do is reducing teh size of government, spending, and protecting personal Liberties -- will they have anything at their core -- except lust for power.

2.) By 2012 what can be dismantled?

[footstepsfrom#27]

My crazy philosophy (based on Founding Father ideals) leads me to conclude that to force/manipulate equal results to all humans with unequal talents who put forth unequal effort is not only illogical, but it can lead to tyranny.

You can think I am a whack job, it’s your right, but I don’t think my views are so radically different from what the Founding Fathers believed on a whole number of issues --
You say you're philosophically tied to the founding fathers based in part apparently on the notion that they created a system that assigns basic rights to people that allow them to succeed on their own merits instead of some kind of artificially contrived system that fixes the results ahead of time.

Fine.

You do realize that the founding fathers lacked the courage to defend the same basic rights they penned into our Declaration of Independence for the people we LEGALLY kidnapped, murdered, raped and tortured for nearly 100 years after they birthed the nation because they were concerned with the political consequences of losing the support of the southern colonies...right? You also realize that the system they established was deliberately designed to not only create unequal rights, but unequal results as well...right? And you do realize that this system of "rights" they created was so exclusionary that it offered these rights to less than half the people in America...right? And finally...do you further realize that this same system was flawed enough that it's needed to be amended 27 times since it's introduction?

So tell me...would you like to keep it as it is or return to what it was in the beginning?

[frerottenextelway]

I see your point, how could anyone want it to fail? But what part of America's past does he want to fail? So far it has been the small businessman, a solid dollar, and an increasing number of Liberties. I think he is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If Obama feels that pain can change healthcare, clean the environment, and increase his powerbase, I don’t think he is beyond it. But his actions don’t make any sense to me if he wants to reduce unemployment for the next several years. By going after private companies, and taking them over and replacing CEO's he gains more control over the means of production -- which may be of more long-term value to him. Will cap and trade create jobs or loose them? -- its freaking intent is to reduce gases that come from production. Don’t your find any of his actions concerning?

I think Obama sees government as the solution to many more problems than I do -- so yes, I do think that this administration can only transform the economy quickly (in ways that not rooted in our history, or justified by the limits prescribed in the Constitution) before the next election cycle unless there is an equal crisis -- if unemployment is high, and we are having other economic problems. IF you believe that America's system is better off if it is transformed into something Socialist, then how else would one accomplish this monumental undertaking? Its logical -- the ends justifies the means.

I think the end-game will have horrific implications in reduced Liberties, than most realize at this point -- but by then, will be very hard to dismantle, and the increased executive power will go to an R (and most R's will take the power and abuse it as well) Very, very few would respect the power of the people, and give it back to the people.

Okay, let me go through these.

First off, the notion that Obama wants America to fail to gain power is every bit as much whack-job lunacy as Gaffney and his 9/11 theories, so I'm not going to bother going into that.

Second, Obama does not want the government to control health care, he wants a government option in health insurance. It's to give people an option similiar to our medicare system, not an option similiar to our military health care (although perhaps it should be).

Third, this health care overhaul would be a tremendous boost to our small businesses. Nothing is hurting our small businesses and future small businesses more than the cost of the employer to provide health insurance to the employees. Besides payroll, it is the single biggest expense to an average small business owner.

Fourth, you asked why did money go to bailout wall street but not a small bank that provided small business loans. Point one, this was done on the last guys clock, not Obamas. Point two, the bailout was to save us from being a failed state.

More on Fourth. Lehman Bros was a AAA+ rated company, which means money markets were invested in that. When it went under, and we did not bail it out, it caused money markets to have a return of below 0%. This caused an electronic run on the money markets until they were literally frozen by the U.S. government. If this had been alowed to go on, or if other major banks had gone under, it would have caused us to be a failed state. If you have a savings account, or a 401k, or whatever, you would have woken up one morning in September and had $0 in it. Your life savings, unless it's in a safe in your house or whatever, would have been completely gone. This is not the case with small local banks.

Fifth, you talk about a weakening dollar. Let me give you graphs (both taken from Google Finance), one with the USD vs the British Pound and one with the USD vs the Australian Dollar.

http://historybyday.com/images/usdgbp.jpg
http://historybyday.com/images/usdaud.jpg

We should know by now that bubbles are generally bad, however good they may be in the short term. And those bubbles? Those are f'n huge. Thank God they are popping. Our dollar has been artifically inflated since the world collapse, if those had kept on going it could have been catastrophic.

Sixth, you have talked about high unemployment and then talk about the car companies. The Right generally wanted to see them go under to bust unions and move money to southern states. The Left and Obama wants them to succeed because that's a lot of f'n jobs. The loss in auto jobs covers almost all the recent jumps in unemployment over the past month or so. Imagine if they were completely shutdown for good, as the Right wanted to see happen?

EDIT: I love dipping into substance. That was fun. I win.

[Bob]

You say you're philosophically tied to the founding fathers based in part apparently on the notion that they created a system that assigns basic rights to people that allow them to succeed on their own merits instead of some kind of artificially contrived system that fixes the results ahead of time.

Fine.

You do realize that the founding fathers lacked the courage to defend the same basic rights they penned into our Declaration of Independence for the people we LEGALLY kidnapped, murdered, raped and tortured for nearly 100 years after they birthed the nation because they were concerned with the political consequences of losing the support of the southern colonies...right? You also realize that the system they established was deliberately designed to not only create unequal rights, but unequal results as well...right? And you do realize that this system of "rights" they created was so exclusionary that it offered these rights to less than half the people in America...right? And finally...do you further realize that this same system was flawed enough that it's needed to be amended 27 times since it's introduction?

So tell me...would you like to keep it as it is or return to what it was in the beginning?

Your not wrong in every example -- they did lack courage on the slavery issue in my opinion -- for their time they were progressive on many ideas, but fell obviously very short on this issue. I honestly don’t know what would have happened if when we founded the country what would have happened if slavery was banned (I cant remember when the cotton gin was invented.) Was slavery too entrenched by then, what was the popular sentiment? Could two America's have survived? Would it have created a wedge that would have destroyed everything before the experiment of ever-extending Liberties could be tried?

I know that Benjamin Franklin was very much against it, and fought against it .... I also know that some of the founders were pushing for the concept of "life, liberty and property" to be the governing motto, but as slaves were considered property at the time that would have setup a system that would have made it much more difficult to ever deal with slavery at some future point -- so they left the door open, for when the time was ready.

So you are right, that an evil was allowed to exist, sadly.

Did the framework of Liberty that was defined to the majority of Americans not create an environment that allowed for an explosion of inventions and property to occur? In terms of wealth, but 1905 America produced 50% of everything manufactured in the world. yet our population at the time was about 5%. We invented the car, airplane, TV, radio, light bulb, the telegraph, were the first to land on the moon – was it because we were smarter, or harder working? No, I don’t think so. It was because there was a framework that protected Liberty and rewarded and encouraged individual efforts (not collective) and allowed also for the freedom to fail. There is so much more that make America great, than we should be ashamed of -- all of the greatest ideals, like those captured by the founding documents, amplify the weakness of the imperfect people who reached beyond their ability to live --

You, 200 + years later are sickened by some of their actions, and lack of courage? How many of the signers of the declaration lost everything they had? If you do not revere them, I wonder who’s history your are reading from? In honest reflection, think how barbaric your actions & your words will seem 200 years from now?

[footstepsfrom#27]

You, 200 + years later are sickened by some of their actions, and lack of courage? How many of the signers of the declaration lost everything they had? If you do not revere them, I wonder who’s history your are reading from? In honest reflection, think how barbaric your actions & your words will seem 200 years from now?
There is nothing barbaric about my words or actions that time will vilify. However, you're really missing my point. I'm not making the point that they should be disdained, I'm making the point that you base your politics on the idea that equal opportunity produced this economic juggernaut when in fact it wasn't "equal" at all. You specify exasperation with some imaginary system you think Obama will institute that discards what you phrase as a system which you think will attempt to create equal results by damaging equal opportunity or punishing those with talent and a work ethic. I'm merely pointing out what a false image you're presenting. Our system began as one that was designed to do exactly what you're railing against now...skew the results to those we wanted to succeed while destroying the opportunities for those we didn't. In fact it went much further than this. It not only disavowed offering opportunity for all, it made the opportunity for some a product of the very work others did for them. Hence your view that the founding fathers created some kind of commercial utopia based on freedom and free markets as the basis for success is not only misguided and historically wrong, but in fact the reality is exactly opposite that.

[El Minion]

Okay, let me go through these.

.........
Third, this health care overhaul would be a tremendous boost to our small businesses. Nothing is hurting our small businesses and future small businesses more than the cost of the employer to provide health insurance to the employees. Besides payroll, it is the single biggest expense to an average small business owner.

........

Your Health Policy Has Been Canceled (http://www.thebigmoney.com/features/making-payroll/2009/07/27/your-health-policy-has-been-canceled?page=full)
Government-run insurance could not be worse than what small businesses already face.

By Jonathan Weber
Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 - 11:01am
We got a letter earlier this month from our company health-insurance provider, informing us that our policy had been canceled for late payment of the premium. No warning or notice, just a cancellation letter. After lots of begging and pleading, a $3,700 check, and four days of heartburn for yours truly, we got it reinstated.

I suspected that the real reason for the cancellation was that we had the audacity to actually file some significant claims. The policy has a $5,000 deductible, but I had an appendectomy last year (about $18,000) and a few other claims as well. The insurance company assured us that this was not the case: Lots of small businesses had gotten cancellation notices, because lots of companies are falling behind on their premiums in this economy and the insurance company is cracking down.

Somehow I didn't find that very reassuring. On the contrary, this incident reinforced my strong conviction that the idea that health care reform isn't good for small businesses (http://capwiz.com/nfib/issues/alert/?alertid=13745361)is arrant nonsense. If there is one thing the federal government can do to help my company, health care reform is it.

Consider the position we're in with the above-mentioned incident. Unlike almost anything else we buy, health insurance is not something we can simply get from another vendor. In writing policies, insurance companies require that you have continuous coverage, or else they will exclude coverage for all pre-existing conditions (which when you get to be my age can be a lot of things). Thus cancellation of the policy would have permanently undermined our ability to get insurance.

I'm not saying we should be able to pay late with impunity. But a system in which we are subject to the shifting policies of an all-but-unregulated private insurance company that effectively has the power to deny our ability to get coverage anywhere is absurd.

Further, I had to spend several days sweating this issue, working with our office manager to fix it, trying to decide whether to tell people about the problem or wait until we got it resolved. This was time and energy not spent on anything having to do with what NewWest.Net is in business to do.

While the final components of the reform package remain in flux, it appears certain to include a health insurance exchange in which individuals could choose from an array of plans—probably including a government-sponsored "public option." As an employer, I could choose—or, rather, we collectively as a company could choose—whether to keep our current group plan or use the exchange.

It's more than likely that the exchange would provide better options than our current, minimalist group policy. The company could decide whether to pay a portion of the premiums. If we didn't, we could be subject to a penalty tax, although very small businesses like NewWest.Net would probably be exempted. Either way, we'd compensate people in some fashion—just as we currently pay 50 percent of the group plan premiums even though we're not obliged to provide health insurance.

In short, the costs to NewWest.Net almost certainly would not go up, and they might go down. The insurance options for employees would improve. Most importantly from my standpoint, the whole issue would go away as something that I had to spend a lot of time worrying about. No more calls from employees wondering why, say, the pharmacy isn't accepting the insurance. No more wrangling with the insurance company and the doctors over why they couldn't agree on the appropriate reimbursement for a particular service.

I fail to see the downside.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses says small businesses should oppose the legislation because it "fails to lower" health care costs, ignoring the fact that there are a lot of issues here besides cost (see above).

It also exaggerates the burden of the "mandate" that would be imposed; it's a non-issue if you already provide health insurance, and if you're too big for the exemption, it's only a matter of equity that you do your part in sharing the costs (your competitors will be similarly obliged). Businesses are already subject to all kinds of mandates, and this one hardly looks especially burdensome.

There is, of course, the issue of how all of this would be paid for, which is a legitimate concern. But that relates to small businesses only insofar as what's bad for the country would be bad for small businesses.

I can understand why insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors and other health care providers would oppose reform; it will reduce their pricing power, and thus possibly reduce their income. I can understand why rich people might oppose it, too: Health care isn't a problem for them, and they'll probably have to pay more taxes to solve it for other people. And I can understand why Republicans, as a political strategy, would oppose reform: Failure would be a big defeat for Obama, and a successful reform would be a big feather in the Democratic cap.

But the notion that health care reform is bad for small businesses is little more than a purposefully misleading bag of rhetoric that has nothing to do with the real issues facing small businesses. I desperately hope that most business owners see through it and communicate with their elected representatives accordingly.

Jonathan Weber is the founder, publisher, and CEO of New West, a media company covering life and business in the Rocky Mountain West.

[Bob]

Okay, let me go through these.

First off, the notion that Obama wants America to fail to gain power is every bit as much whack-job lunacy as Gaffney and his 9/11 theories, so I'm not going to bother going into that.

Second, Obama does not want the government to control health care, he wants a government option in health insurance. It's to give people an option similiar to our medicare system, not an option similiar to our military health care (although perhaps it should be).

Third, this health care overhaul would be a tremendous boost to our small businesses. Nothing is hurting our small businesses and future small businesses more than the cost of the employer to provide health insurance to the employees. Besides payroll, it is the single biggest expense to an average small business owner.

Fourth, you asked why did money go to bailout wall street but not a small bank that provided small business loans. Point one, this was done on the last guys clock, not Obamas. Point two, the bailout was to save us from being a failed state.

More on Fourth. Lehman Bros was a AAA+ rated company, which means money markets were invested in that. When it went under, and we did not bail it out, it caused money markets to have a return of below 0%. This caused an electronic run on the money markets until they were literally frozen by the U.S. government. If this had been alowed to go on, or if other major banks had gone under, it would have caused us to be a failed state. If you have a savings account, or a 401k, or whatever, you would have woken up one morning in September and had $0 in it. Your life savings, unless it's in a safe in your house or whatever, would have been completely gone. This is not the case with small local banks.

Fifth, you talk about a weakening dollar. Let me give you graphs (both taken from Google Finance), one with the USD vs the British Pound and one with the USD vs the Australian Dollar.

http://historybyday.com/images/usdgbp.jpg
http://historybyday.com/images/usdaud.jpg

We should know by now that bubbles are generally bad, however good they may be in the short term. And those bubbles? Those are f'n huge. Thank God they are popping. Our dollar has been artifically inflated since the world collapse, if those had kept on going it could have been catastrophic.

Sixth, you have talked about high unemployment and then talk about the car companies. The Right generally wanted to see them go under to bust unions and move money to southern states. The Left and Obama wants them to succeed because that's a lot of f'n jobs. The loss in auto jobs covers almost all the recent jumps in unemployment over the past month or so. Imagine if they were completely shutdown for good, as the Right wanted to see happen?

EDIT: I love dipping into substance. That was fun. I win.

Thoughtful post, because of the substance -- unlike the I'm an idiot because of ideological differences approach. I dont think I am attempting to win in some D and R game -- both parties are playing it. I think it is increasingly hard to see what is going on becuase of the speed in which things are happening, and the spin that is thrown by both parties -- who I think do not have our best interest at heart.

Obama says he wants a public option -- Obama has stated that. I dont think that his actions so far have shown he prefers private over government controled companies. He also has stated, because I have heard him, that the private companies would be helped by the compitition with some of the government options that will be out there -- and I have to ask how can a private company healthcare company compete (on a short-term basis) with a government run system that doesnt have to make a profit, and can simply suck money from other parts of the economy to prop it up, until the private sector companies have mostly died. After that has been done, the government will be less concerned about what it does with the government plan, just like the DMV, because where else can one go anyway? You have a point that small business will look to shift their cost -- as the government plan will be articially propped up (with printed money, and money from other sectors) it will force other small businesses to join in the government plan as well -- just to stay afloat. As more jobs are lost -- guess what they will get on the Obma plan. Other countries got into American markets the same way -- like the semi-conductor industry, and TV's -- they supported the companies, while American companies folded, and after most or all of them were dead, they the only one's left standing -- that's a game America lost in terms of choice. Socialized Healthcare will result in the end with less choice and certainly less competition, when there is less competition quality goes down. Have you read The Wealth of Nations?

[Bob]

There is nothing barbaric about my words or actions that time will vilify. However, you're really missing my point. I'm not making the point that they should be disdained, I'm making the point that you base your politics on the idea that equal opportunity produced this economic juggernaut when in fact it wasn't "equal" at all. You specify exasperation with some imaginary system you think Obama will institute that discards what you phrase as a system which you think will attempt to create equal results by damaging equal opportunity or punishing those with talent and a work ethic. I'm merely pointing out what a false image you're presenting. Our system began as one that was designed to do exactly what you're railing against now...skew the results to those we wanted to succeed while destroying the opportunities for those we didn't. In fact it went much further than this. It not only disavowed offering opportunity for all, it made the opportunity for some a product of the very work others did for them. Hence your view that the founding fathers created some kind of commercial utopia based on freedom and free markets as the basis for success is not only misguided and historically wrong, but in fact the reality is exactly opposite that.

Can I say I hope your right in terms of, the intent of what is being created now?

When slavery was done away, we still prospered -- even more so. I hear what you are saying, but I don’t see American history in the Michele O, way.

The facts are we have had great wealth and inventiveness -- you say our prosperity came because of our collective slavery -- I say it came because of our Liberty. Think -- other nations had slavery as well -- most did, but they also had static Social structures that not only excluded part of society (like ours did) but rarely allowed for any real movement from poor to rich, from cast-out to leader. From castes in India, to Feudalism in Europe – for much of world's history this has been true. Locke in England talked about these types of freedoms, 100 years before our founding -- but only after he had to leave England in fear of his life. The American system of checks and balances put into place more than just aspects of English Law, it also finally implemented ideas that had been percolating for centuries, beginning with Cicero (who by the way was also murdered for his views.)

I do think this may be at the very core of so much dispute around the nation -- if one feels that slavery is the ideological foundation upon which we were built, that we are at the root wicked, then how could one not want to tear down the old and erect something else in its place? I think there are some, that would be ok with replacing the old -- with anything -- just make it different. But I know enough from history -- that the stuff we seem to be using are from the ideological trash-heaps of history is composted from the blood of generations of peasants.

We are not creating "new" constructs, most just don’t know that they are not new, and every few generations we try on paternal government fro size to save us from the Depression, or from ourselves, only to find that it quickly turns from a demanding parent to tyrant. Like Washington said -- government is a fire, useful if controlled -- but can quickly become deadly.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Can I say I hope your right in terms of, the intent of what is being created now?

When slavery was done away, we still prospered -- even more so. I hear what you are saying, but I don’t see American history in the Michele O, way.
So what are you saying...you're proud of the fact that 90% of our history was spent vehemently denying the very foundational principles we supposedly founded the country on in the first place? How could you see it any other way than she's expressed it? I'm constantly mystified at the fact that so many white Americans can simply look the other way at what was the overwhelming and dominant theme of this nation for majority of our time on this continent.
The facts are we have had great wealth and inventiveness -- you say our prosperity came because of our collective slavery -- I say it came because of our Liberty.
"Our" liberty? WHOSE liberty are you referring to? You mean the liberty we enjoyed at the expense of those we enslaved? How can that possibly be considered liberty? How can you portend liberty for some if you don't have liberty for all? How can you even consider linking our prosperity in (at the very least) our first 100 years as a nation...250 in this land...when we engaged in the deliberate denial of the very liberty you speak of to other human beings? Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" resulted in death...for those we hypocritically said did not deserve what we insisted we had to have for ourselves.
Think -- other nations had slavery as well -- most did, but they also had static Social structures that not only excluded part of society (like ours did) but rarely allowed for any real movement from poor to rich, from cast-out to leader. From castes in India, to Feudalism in Europe – for much of world's history this has been true.
And in case you haven't noticed, we're following that exact pathway. The gap between the rich and not just the poor but the middle class...has rapidly expanded over the last decade like it never has before. The middle class is disappearing and the working poor are falling into the social safety nets. You speak of our economic opportunity as if it's been entrenched since the Revolutionary War, but the truth is most of our economic prosperity has only resulted since the end of World War II and was not the product of liberty, but rather resulted from the fact that the European continent, Russia and Japan were devastated and it took them 30 years to recover...in other words our competitors were down and almost out. US military power has ensured our economic strength while other nations were technologically inferior to us, but the spread of education and cheap technology has changed that. That phenomenon is partly due to opportunity spread through the capitalistic model but partly due also to simple market conditions changing in favor of cheaper work forces in manufacturing.
I do think this may be at the very core of so much dispute around the nation -- if one feels that slavery is the ideological foundation upon which we were built, that we are at the root wicked, then how could one not want to tear down the old and erect something else in its place?
That in fact is exactly what we've been trying to do since 1964...and for good reason. Who can argue otherwise? Whether you want to call our sins the "ideological foundation" or not...I don't really care. The point is we cannot deny our own history any more than Nazi Germany can deny theirs. We've become adept at deceiving ourselves into believing that we are a uniquely benevolent country...upon what basis? Even most of our sacrifices in military conflict have had some kind of goal of either obtaining or maintaining commercial interests. If we're truly benevolent, let's use our power to free someone from tyranny when we have nothing to gain. That's not going to happen.
I think there are some, that would be ok with replacing the old -- with anything -- just make it different. But I know enough from history -- that the stuff we seem to be using are from the ideological trash-heaps of history is composted from the blood of generations of peasants.
What does that even mean? You're implying that government regulation of capitalistic initiative is communism? Are you aware that our country's capital and corporate markets were regulated like this pretty much from the Great Depression forward into the 1970's? It's primarily since Regan took office that we've had this ultra loosely moderated economy...you have an amazing amount of trust in people who have repeatedly proven their own ability to engage in corruption and to put their own interests ahead of the nation's. Conservatives seem to think that only the rich can generate jobs or economic prosperity...but in fact it's the middle class small business market that generates 80% of American jobs. We also have an enormous human resources market lying dormant in the poor...why are we not focusing on trying to lift them up merely from the motivation wrought by the need to have them generate their own commercial support? It's impossible to leave huge sections of this nation's people mired in poverty through neglect and us still prosper as a country. You forget that the post WW II generation was a manufacturing economy...that no longer exists so we have to re-educate, retrain and re-energize those on the bottom to become entrepreneurs and qualify them for the new economy. If we don't...our prosperity as a nation is finished.
We are not creating "new" constructs, most just don’t know that they are not new...
I see you making this argument, and in the other thread you specifically stated that reading Obama's proposed legislation will reveal the truth. Are you saying you've done so? I don't believe you if that's what you're saying...you'll have to prove it. How much you actually know about Obama besides what you read in the press or hear on TV? Long before I voted for him...before most people even knew about him...I was researching this guy. I read both his books, examined his prior record and what he did in his Chicago career. I voted for him on the basis that Obama...unlike what most realize...is much more of a pragmatist than he an ideologue...so much so that he's the first truly unique out-of-the-box thinker we've had in the presidency since JFK. Here's an example; do you know what he's doing with respect to establishing a federal office of social entrepreneurship? (Look the term up.) This is a hugely important, but under the radar initiative most people are completely unaware of. But it will be a major force within 10 years.

[Odysseus]

:rofl: I am siting in Tomah Wisconsin , waiting on permits , got the CB on listening to the chatter , politics came up , one guy actually believes, that the New Healthcare plan will not cover whites , Obama wants to replace all the white CEO's with back ones ....... I keyed up and had to ask , Hey , are you a broncofan known as BarryR or Bob ?
He said no , I said thats amazing , I thought they was alone on planet crazy .......

All the REAL crap that is going on goes ignored....
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/28/body.building.steroids/index.html

I am amazed at how ignorant we are as a people. How can we have so much technology and be so stupid?

[Dudeskey]

Yeah hypocrite, we'll see you make this same suggestion to those you agree with. Oh, you never do, how shocking. I don't recall starting idiot threads with the sole purpose to personally attack members in forums, but it's ok with you as long as you typically agree with their points. Hypocrisy at its finest. :wave:

Maybe if you weren't letting the rightie pundits think for you, I would be nicer...™:wiggle:

[Bob]

So what are you saying...you're proud of the fact that 90% of our history was spent vehemently denying the very foundational principles we supposedly founded the country on in the first place? How could you see it any other way than she's expressed it? I'm constantly mystified at the fact that so many white Americans can simply look the other way at what was the overwhelming and dominant theme of this nation for majority of our time on this continent.

"Our" liberty? WHOSE liberty are you referring to? You mean the liberty we enjoyed at the expense of those we enslaved? How can that possibly be considered liberty? How can you portend liberty for some if you don't have liberty for all? How can you even consider linking our prosperity in (at the very least) our first 100 years as a nation...250 in this land...when we engaged in the deliberate denial of the very liberty you speak of to other human beings? Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" resulted in death...for those we hypocritically said did not deserve what we insisted we had to have for ourselves.

And in case you haven't noticed, we're following that exact pathway. The gap between the rich and not just the poor but the middle class...has rapidly expanded over the last decade like it never has before. The middle class is disappearing and the working poor are falling into the social safety nets. You speak of our economic opportunity as if it's been entrenched since the Revolutionary War, but the truth is most of our economic prosperity has only resulted since the end of World War II and was not the product of liberty, but rather resulted from the fact that the European continent, Russia and Japan were devastated and it took them 30 years to recover...in other words our competitors were down and almost out. US military power has ensured our economic strength while other nations were technologically inferior to us, but the spread of education and cheap technology has changed that. That phenomenon is partly due to opportunity spread through the capitalistic model but partly due also to simple market conditions changing in favor of cheaper work forces in manufacturing.

That in fact is exactly what we've been trying to do since 1964...and for good reason. Who can argue otherwise? Whether you want to call our sins the "ideological foundation" or not...I don't really care. The point is we cannot deny our own history any more than Nazi Germany can deny theirs. We've become adept at deceiving ourselves into believing that we are a uniquely benevolent country...upon what basis? Even most of our sacrifices in military conflict have had some kind of goal of either obtaining or maintaining commercial interests. If we're truly benevolent, let's use our power to free someone from tyranny when we have nothing to gain. That's not going to happen.

What does that even mean? You're implying that government regulation of capitalistic initiative is communism? Are you aware that our country's capital and corporate markets were regulated like this pretty much from the Great Depression forward into the 1970's? It's primarily since Regan took office that we've had this ultra loosely moderated economy...you have an amazing amount of trust in people who have repeatedly proven their own ability to engage in corruption and to put their own interests ahead of the nation's. Conservatives seem to think that only the rich can generate jobs or economic prosperity...but in fact it's the middle class small business market that generates 80% of American jobs. We also have an enormous human resources market lying dormant in the poor...why are we not focusing on trying to lift them up merely from the motivation wrought by the need to have them generate their own commercial support? It's impossible to leave huge sections of this nation's people mired in poverty through neglect and us still prosper as a country. You forget that the post WW II generation was a manufacturing economy...that no longer exists so we have to re-educate, retrain and re-energize those on the bottom to become entrepreneurs and qualify them for the new economy. If we don't...our prosperity as a nation is finished.

I see you making this argument, and in the other thread you specifically stated that reading Obama's proposed legislation will reveal the truth. Are you saying you've done so? I don't believe you if that's what you're saying...you'll have to prove it. How much you actually know about Obama besides what you read in the press or hear on TV? Long before I voted for him...before most people even knew about him...I was researching this guy. I read both his books, examined his prior record and what he did in his Chicago career. I voted for him on the basis that Obama...unlike what most realize...is much more of a pragmatist than he an ideologue...so much so that he's the first truly unique out-of-the-box thinker we've had in the presidency since JFK. Here's an example; do you know what he's doing with respect to establishing a federal office of social entrepreneurship? (Look the term up.) This is a hugely important, but under the radar initiative most people are completely unaware of. But it will be a major force within 10 years.

Great post .. I would love to talk to someone with your perspective in person someday, especially if the ideas can be batted around without one person freaking out -- which happens too often with deeply held beliefs. You obviously have done your homework... I know, this does not equal the level of time you have put into this post, but I am getting to the end of my day here -- and may need to digest some of your ideas.

Maybe the issue is one of percentages ... when I have read histories of our nation and looked at the picture, I see mostly good, not mostly bad -- I dont think I am incapable of seeing the bad, but I do not ascribe every action to selfishness -- their are the facts to look at and their are the life experinces we each have that impose on the cold facts.

Its good that you did your homework on Obama, when I hear about him from most media outlets, they are about as introspective and fair as Hennity is with him in but in reverse -- if that makes sense, so many times I cant trust very much of what is being said about him from either types right now. I dont think the media is doing their job thus far, and I "hope" for the best, but on some core issues, think he does have a simular mindset about the country as you do -- if I think we are mostly good, and our history is (as a whole) is not something to be ashamed of, then it it only natural that I would attempt to be informed about the issues, and be engaged, but generally oppose his changes, as they dont build on the foundations, that I think are Holy. As I know, what happened in some instances, when the progressives were in the majority in our history, I hope that FDR is not imitated in every respect. My grand uncle was beaten to death by union members for building homes without their approval, my grandfather was in the trucking industry in Chicago, and his wife was murdered by being thrown out of a window -- again, my family may be always taking the wrong side against the power structure, so I may be a tad sensitive.

If this administration can take on additional power without that power twisting into something violent, into something that inherently seeks to trample the rights of those with differnt views -- fine, but history outlines that one king in one hundred can do this -- yes, I said king. King Bush, now King Obama, what next King Palin? Kings are bad, right or left --too much power to the one, too little in representative government.

[atomicbloke]

More on Fourth. Lehman Bros was a AAA+ rated company, which means money markets were invested in that. When it went under, and we did not bail it out, it caused money markets to have a return of below 0%. This caused an electronic run on the money markets until they were literally frozen by the U.S. government. If this had been alowed to go on, or if other major banks had gone under, it would have caused us to be a failed state. If you have a savings account, or a 401k, or whatever, you would have woken up one morning in September and had $0 in it. Your life savings, unless it's in a safe in your house or whatever, would have been completely gone. This is not the case with small local banks.



:thumbs::thumbsup:

How do the "intellectually superior" rightwads not understand this simple fact is beyond me? Even with a basic understanding of economics this should be clear?

Is it easier to argue with FUD-like statements like "Obama wants to make us serfs" than a logical discussion on the lines of Economic 101?

[ghwk]

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, --

Including when you make asinine comments about putting on an Acorn t shirt when you are homeless as though it will somehow save you and put a jab on Obama at the same time. Hypocrite.

[frerottenextelway]

and I have to ask how can a private company healthcare company compete (on a short-term basis) with a government run system that doesnt have to make a profit, and can simply suck money from other parts of the economy to prop it up, until the private sector companies have mostly died.

UPS and FedEx have done quite well despite the USPS. This would be the same sorta deal.

[footstepsfrom#27]

-- and I have to ask how can a private company healthcare company compete (on a short-term basis) with a government run system that doesnt have to make a profit, and can simply suck money from other parts of the economy to prop it up, until the private sector companies have mostly died. After that has been done, the government will be less concerned about what it does with the government plan, just like the DMV, because where else can one go anyway?
First of all, who cares if the private companies compete or not? We know for a fact that fraud, waste and inefficiency is where the cost overruns are. So given the legendary wasteful practices of government, if private sector companies can't figure out how to beat them...screw them. I say this expecting them to be able to do so...but right now they have no competition, therefore they have no incentive to change. As for government simply sucking up other resources and not really having to compete, that would by definition make them a target of Congressional budget cutting, which means we simply axe this program like any other if it doesn't work.

Finally, even if public run health care drove all the private firms out of business and then let themselves get fat and lazy again...the market would soon see the entrance of additional private firms to take advantage. Competition and innovation are the key factors, and without competition, you won't get innovation from private providers because they have no need to make changes.

Here's an idea nobody has proposed, but it make sense to me. We outsource a good deal of everything else to other places, so why not offer private foreign health care providers the opportunity to compete in this market to do things that don't need to be done face to face. Example; any kind of lab work such as X-rays or blood tests, tele-medicine where patients are interviewed by phone or over a video link and the doc is in India or Canada. Standards and practices would be required to submit to US law and the canon of medical ethics, foreign competitors would register as corporate interests in the states they do business in so consumers have the right to sue in US courts, etc...a guy from India does your taxes already, why not let him handle a portion of your medical work if he's qualified to do so and the technology enables it? Some will say US doctors will be driven out of business but I submit only the low end of the market would be impacted seriously, and these are usually the guys working in Doc-in-the-box places like health clinics. None-the-less that's a major factor in the current cost overruns where the poor use the ER as their default choice of care. This would drive insurance costs down because the cost of business comes down, competition drives up quality due to the competition factor, managed care costs get spread to overseas companies, and consumers can decide for themselves (choice) if they like the arrangement or not and if they don't they don't choose it...bingo: market forces introduce non public options, the taxation factor is smaller and everybody wins.

[Bob]

[QUOTE=footstepsfrom#27;2485458]First of all, who cares if the private companies compete or not? We know for a fact that fraud, waste and inefficiency is where the cost overruns are. So given the legendary wasteful practices of government, if private sector companies can't figure out how to beat them...screw them. I say this expecting them to be able to do so...but right now they have no competition, therefore they have no incentive to change. As for government simply sucking up other resources and not really having to compete, that would by definition make them a target of Congressional budget cutting, which means we simply axe this program like any other if it doesn't work.
QUOTE]

Wow, but considering how many jobs the private sector has created in our country over the past hundred years -- how can one just adopt a just screw them mentality? "They" are "us." Who decides who the "they folks are?

Are adult beverages manufacturers, soda companies, CEO's, oil exectives, Wall Street, fast food campanies, healthcare workers all part of "they"? Dont you see that the list just seems to keep on growing? Of course you do see it but you are ok with it, as you feel that taking Liberties and choice away is the divine right of kings -- to crush the sectors that make money, or those who you have decided are undesirable -- not the people's choice, through capitalism -- you and Big Brother, and the annoited Czars know best....yet another reason why healthcare must be plundered, and controlled.

How idiotic to think, if the private comoany cant figure out how to compete with the governement who:
1.) sets the rules for private industry (but doesnt have to follow them)
2.) who doesnt have to make a profit to keep running, and who can literailly run in the red for years, until the other guy folds -- then once dead do whatever they want.

Your thinking is not logical, is one reason why we are seeing, and will continue to see millions of lost jobs -- your thoughts (in this issue) is not rooted in our history or tradition, but in Marxism.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Wow, but considering how many jobs the private sector has created in our country over the past hundred years -- how can one just adopt a just screw them mentality?
I think it's obvious. We're talking about fixing a MASSIVE problem here, one that advocates of the continuation of status quo insist is better than any public option. If that's true, then obviously the private sector option retains its assumed advantage in terms of fiscal efficiency ONLY if they can demonstrate they are indeed a better option in the actual competition of the market. We're looking for what works best here, not what partisan politics says "should" happen based on loyalty to capitalism or some inherent distrust of "socialized medicine". In other words...it's survival of the fittest here. Whatever works best should survive, and if they're competitive models...perhaps producing similar benefit but in different ways...for example cost vs. quality...then we have an argument for both models co-existing. Lacking that...a clear loser deserves no legitimacy or right to market participation.
Are adult beverages manufacturers, soda companies, CEO's, oil exectives, Wall Street, fast food campanies, healthcare workers all part of "they"? Dont you see that the list just seems to keep on growing?
Apples to iPods here...we're not talking about producing government options for ordinary consumer goods. We're talking about specifically designing an option to compete with a private system of essential services that has proven to be a failure in terms of its ability to maintain either financial affordability or market access to large numbers of people. That's not true of sodas, burgers or mutual funds is it?
Of course you do see it but you are ok with it, as you feel that taking Liberties and choice away is the divine right of kings -- to crush the sectors that make money, or those who you have decided are undesirable -- not the people's choice, through capitalism -- you and Big Brother, and the annoited Czars know best....yet another reason why healthcare must be plundered, and controlled.
First of all I'm not only a capitalist, I'm a radical one. I support the capitalistic model not only as an economic model, but I advocate it being extended in new directions and new dimensions in a way that should replace government programs to the poor. Second, this bill is not about removing choice, it's about increasing choice. The public option is designed to offer additional options, not remove them.
How idiotic to think, if the private comoany cant figure out how to compete with the governement who:
1.) sets the rules for private industry (but doesnt have to follow them)
2.) who doesnt have to make a profit to keep running, and who can literailly run in the red for years, until the other guy folds -- then once dead do whatever they want.
I advocate the government option surviving as the sole option only if it proves to be financially more efficient under market rules. It would make no sense to keep something less worthy than what we have now. This isn't about ideology to me, it's about sustainability. If the public option isn't sustainable then we go back to the drawing board and find other solutions. Keep in mind that I'm assuming the private sector not only can compete, but I'm expecting them to become much more efficient than they are now through the competition. Government has no reason to stack the deck here...why should they? If we're trying to construct the best system, why would we support the existence of either model if it's not working?
Your thinking is not logical, is one reason why we are seeing, and will continue to see millions of lost jobs -- your thoughts (in this issue) is not rooted in our history or tradition, but in Marxism.
Marxism? LOL Hardly. I simply advocate market principles applying to the entire equation. If anything, I've detailed a low tolerance for the public system not being able to exist unless it's competitive, which is not a Marxist philosophy.

You didn't comment on the introduction of foreign competition I mentioned. Did you overlook this? When we see insurance premiums for farmers in India that can charge 25 cents a month and tele-medicine technology able to do electrocardiograms for poor farms and provide $50-$300 eye surgery including post operative care with quality rivaling US standards, then obviously we should be examining if what they're doing can be implemented here, or if it can't, then whether we should consider outsourcing to people who can deliver services on this kind of financial scale.

Not only am I thinking logically, I'm thinking strategically. One of the biggest problems we have right now in competing globally is that we're wasting massive human resources...the people who we could be educating to contribute to our economy we're leaving in poverty where we have to have public assistance take care of them. One of the biggest problems with energizing this potential market as contributors is the fact that they're unable to overcome some basic issues...health care being a primary reason many of them are not incentified to pursue work...the fear of losing Medicaid coverage for their kids. Fixing this problem would free millions of potential entrepreneurs to pursue market participation instead of standing on the sidelines, as well as providing home grown jobs that don't exist now.

[Spider]

It cracks me up when truckers start talking regulations like it makes them smart. Ditch diggers know how to dig a ditch better then me also but I still don't care.

DOT reg what? LOL like that would stop truckers from doing Meth. Spider however does not do Meth he is a family man..........So that means he drinks heavily and probably hasn't had sex he is really excited about in yrs.........except for that perty lil thing on route 40 in Okla, that he dumped in New Mexico on his way back to Wyoming.

As far as Obama being born in the USA? Funny stuff that really doesn't matter once you have a birth certificate a state will say is legal. If that happens I say you are an American because we set things up so if you are really good at breaking the law you get away with it.

Ruin the country though? Naw he thinks what he wants is best for the country just like Bush though getting rid of Saddam was the best for the country.

As far as Obama being a black panther I heard they turned him down because after all he is half white.

LOL I wish I drank ............ But you nailed the sex part ..........;D

[Spider]

Lisa is a much better trucker than spider (duck, put on throat protection, insert smiley) ;D

LOL thats because it is easier to set on a Box then a bag of rocks ;D.....think about it ....

[Hotrod]

So wait my white ass aint getting no free health care. SOB they always trying to keep whitey down :nono:


Ha!

[cutthemdown]

LOL I wish I drank ............ But you nailed the sex part ..........;D

Don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs? Man no wonder you punch throats. Everyman needs something to release the tension!!!!!!!!!

Clean livin!!!!!! Ah yes you live longer, but have less fun!!!!!!

[cutthemdown]

Two issues if R's get back into office:

1.) what will these new guys do is reducing teh size of government, spending, and protecting personal Liberties -- will they have anything at their core -- except lust for power.

2.) By 2012 what can be dismantled?

Obama can't dismantle anything that couldn't be changed right back if it was really pissing the country off. 4 yrs goes by so fast really if you think about it. Seems like just yesterday we were arguing about a stolen election right?

I don't know Obama's ideas are all bad. If they do turn out bad I don't see why it couldn't be changed again. I do agree at least he is trying something. The ole DC mantra of it won't work lets not do a thing with healthcare is old IMO.

The energy policy I don't like but its not like a repub or different dem couldn't change that policy in 4 or 8 yrs depending on election results.

If Cap and Trade didn't work we could try something else.
If Healthcare sucked we could change it back to private insurances only.

Chances are we can make some socialized medicine work. I don't fear things like that. I refuse to be scared into thinking everything needs to be open to competition. It could be some things just too big and important to be handled by the private side.

I have an open mind but I would like a promise that no way I lose my doctor I have been going to if I use the public option.

No biggie though really because my insurance only for really bad things, i have a high deductible and just pay my office visits to my doc out of pocket. He's just that good its worth 60 bucks to me to see him.

[Bob]

[QUOTE=footstepsfrom#27;2486081]

You didn't comment on the introduction of foreign competition I mentioned. Did you overlook this? When we see insurance premiums for farmers in India that can charge 25 cents a month and tele-medicine technology able to do electrocardiograms for poor farms and provide $50-$300 eye surgery including post operative care with quality rivaling US standards, then obviously we should be examining if what they're doing can be implemented here, or if it can't, then whether we should consider outsourcing to people who can deliver services on this kind of financial scale.
QUOTE]

Mixed feelings -- if a country in India who do not have to play by the same labor laws can do it much cheaper by hiring children to work, or because most of thre country live in deep poverty, I dont know if helps us long term by shiping all of our jobs over seas for a quick buck now...

Is it better for the US economy to a point? Maybe, but when is teh line crossed? If we make nothing (like happened in England) at some point, it becomes an issue of national security.

[Spider]

Don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs? Man no wonder you punch throats. Everyman needs something to release the tension!!!!!!!!!

Clean livin!!!!!! Ah yes you live longer, but have less fun!!!!!!

;D well I dont wear seat belts , so I got that going for me

[footstepsfrom#27]

Mixed feelings -- if a country in India who do not have to play by the same labor laws can do it much cheaper by hiring children to work, or because most of thre country live in deep poverty, I dont know if helps us long term by shiping all of our jobs over seas for a quick buck now...

Is it better for the US economy to a point? Maybe, but when is teh line crossed? If we make nothing (like happened in England) at some point, it becomes an issue of national security.
Children? LOL ...I doubt Indian doctors are children, certainly none I've met over here. We're not talking about shipping US jobs overseas, we're talking about re-orienting what US health care workers are trained for. If you can find radical health care savings in some areas where tele-medicine allows us to utilize off site providers without a reduction in quality, it make sense to re-train US workers in other areas.

Somewhere along the line we have to consider innovative solutions. The reason we're in this fix is because we're trying to have our cake and eat it too. Do you want to pay outrageous health care costs or lose a few jobs from a workforce that's well equipped to retrain itself?

[Bob]

UPS and FedEx have done quite well despite the USPS. This would be the same sorta deal.

Honest question -- which ones came first? Fed Ex was introduced after the USPS not the other way around from what I understand. I guess, I feel better about adding competition to government programs, again if they have to play be simular rules I think the Fed Ex's will do just fine.

[Bob]

Children? LOL ...I doubt Indian doctors are children, certainly none I've met over here. We're not talking about shipping US jobs overseas, we're talking about re-orienting what US health care workers are trained for. If you can find radical health care savings in some areas where tele-medicine allows us to utilize off site providers without a reduction in quality, it make sense to re-train US workers in other areas.

Somewhere along the line we have to consider innovative solutions. The reason we're in this fix is because we're trying to have our cake and eat it too. Do you want to pay outrageous health care costs or lose a few jobs from a workforce that's well equipped to retrain itself?

But maybe you still know what I mean -- competing with third world nations where wages and rules are so different creates concerns for me in an environment where we are already loosing jobs...what is our minimum wage now? Would you be ok, with scrapping those standards in the US?

So this may be an example where I am the commie...

[Spider]

Honest question -- which ones came first? Fed Ex was introduced after the USPS not the other way around from what I understand. I guess, I feel better about adding competition to government programs, again if they have to play be simular rules I think the Fed Ex's will do just fine.

Meh it dont work that way , Fed Ex used to be Caliber Inc , PIE , Consolidated freight , Patterson 151 , and so on , these companies I listed thought it would be cool to go union busting , and hire B*itch made punk ass scabs , well now they are out of business , Conway is a direct descendant of CF ( Consolidated freight ) and so on , there was Sea/Land , on e of the largest companies ever , they got split up .Again union busting ............
UPS has been around since 1907 , and still kicking ass even thou they are Union ......
UPS = Bad ass boys that know how to run a business .......... Dont **** with Brown

[Spider]

Yeah thats the dirty little secret they dont tell you about union busting .........
Monforts went union busting , hired Punk made B*itch scabs , shortly there after .... Monfort became con agra , now swift ..........
Curtis in Denver , went union Busting , No one today even knows who curtis was , but if you are over the age 25 , you have seen their trucks .... purple trucks .......
CF now conway
Yellow is still around

[Bob]

Meh it dont work that way , Fed Ex used to be Caliber Inc , PIE , Consolidated freight , Patterson 151 , and so on , these companies I listed thought it would be cool to go union busting , and hire B*itch made punk ass scabs , well now they are out of business , Conway is a direct descendant of CF ( Consolidated freight ) and so on , there was Sea/Land , on e of the largest companies ever , they got split up .Again union busting ............
UPS has been around since 1907 , and still kicking ass even thou they are Union ......
UPS = Bad ass boys that know how to run a business .......... Dont **** with Brown

So basicly simular businesses that have been around forever, but just differnt names....

Thanks for the education.

[footstepsfrom#27]

But maybe you still know what I mean -- competing with third world nations where wages and rules are so different creates concerns for me in an environment where we are already loosing jobs...what is our minimum wage now? Would you be ok, with scrapping those standards in the US?

So this may be an example where I am the commie...
We can't change the fact that we're in a global economy and competition drives the markets. People have accepted WalMart over here and in exchange for cheap consumer prices we buy from China. We're not going to be able to create some kind of protectionist market that lifts our economy on the strength of service sector jobs, and we're not training large sections of the work force for anything BUT service jobs. Besides...driving down the cost of health care insurance and reducing the cost of services would be a major factor in helping the bottom of the economic ladder to stabilize itself. If nothing else we need to begin experimenting with these off shore providers. Scrapping minimum wage standards is a terrible idea. No matter what you pay American workers we'll never be able to compete on the basis of cost with China or other 3rd world countries. We have to build a better mousetrap, not a less expensive one. We can do that through innovation. Innovation is the one thing we do better than anyone else, and we need to start maximizing our entrepreneurial energy from the bottom upwards.

[barryr]

Maybe if you weren't letting the rightie pundits think for you, I would be nicer...™:wiggle:


...meanwhile he's sucking the ass of anyone with a "d" by their name and reading lefty blog sites. Irony.

[Spider]

So basicly simular businesses that have been around forever, but just differnt names....

Thanks for the education.

Yeah , but alot of the same people that ran these other companies are still in some way in the mix ........ or maybe I should put it this way , alot of the people today still have ties to the old ones .........

[Spider]

...meanwhile he's sucking the ass of anyone with a "d" by their name and reading lefty blog sites. Irony.

LOL you the dick of every right winger there is on TV or Radio , Dudeskey may go to those sites , but doesnt change the fact that he is right n his opinion ......
Dont be hatin ..........

[Dudeskey]

...meanwhile he's sucking the ass of anyone with a "d" by their name and reading lefty blog sites. Irony.

:rofl: Poor ol' naive little barryr... You obviously don't know **** about me. I read a lot of things- from both sides before coming up with my opinion. You oughta try it some time...™

[TailgateNut]

:rofl: Poor ol' naive little barryr... You obviously don't know **** about me. I read a lot of things- from both sides before coming up with my opinion. You oughta try it some time...™

He can't. His ol' motorola radio has the dial stuck on Rush Limbaughs' show.

The EIB (excrement in broadcasting) network.

[Odysseus]

Honest question -- which ones came first? Fed Ex was introduced after the USPS not the other way around from what I understand. I guess, I feel better about adding competition to government programs, again if they have to play be simular rules I think the Fed Ex's will do just fine.

FedEx is federally protected. I say this tongue in cheek. FedEx has an inside track and USPS has to allow them a certain percentage of their business. The USPS gets a raw deal as some of their best business is being mandated to be given away. Fed Ex will do fine. They are protected.