"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods."
"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods."
You're right, in my opinion Mitt is a socialist. He's also a weasel. But you're wrong when you say I have to chose between Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. I'm not a Republican. But if the choice is Paul or Obama, that's a no brainer.
We should emulate other viable universal health care systems rather than creating a shitty combination of private with government involvement. Britain, France, Germany, Canada-their systems aren't perfect, but they're better. Compare per-capita health costs and healthcare outcomes if you don't believe me.
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
But you're wrong when you say I have to chose between Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. I'm not a Republican. But if the choice is Paul or Obama, that's a no brainer.
B-I-N-G-O.
Mr. Price wrote:
Sagarin, I'll be with you so long as you're willing to admit that military spending needs to be cut back too.
Yes, I do not think we can afford to be the world's "police" any longer. Doesn't mean you shouldn't have a strong military, but I'd tend to agree. Costa Rica actually lacks a military, because, as brazen as it seems, in the words of one of their own, "America would swoop in and save us if necessary." And that subsidy and moral hazard is rampant everywhere. Why do you think Canadian medicines are cheaper? Because profit centers elsewhere are subsidizing them. Same with health care delivery in much of Europe. We make it cheaper for everyone else as we plow 67% of our revenue into taxes and back into R&D.
Here's the problem. I would love nothing more than to extricate ourselves from the Middle East, but that ain't happening until we are energy independent. And I don't see current policies cultivating or even encouraging such independence. GE is to Obama what Halliburton was accused of being to Bush with their cute little solar and wind projects. Nuclear (think ceramic technology and thorium reactors) could be viable in 20 years with a subsidy. In the meantime, we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, and we could be retrofitting our fleet to buy those 20 years. Wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro can all be part of the peripheral mix. But wind and solar are a pipe dream right now in terms of scalability and will be for quite some time. Technology will ultimately solve these problems if you let it and don't starve the innovators of badly needed fuel with excessive government regulation and bureaucracy, while subsidizing everyone else. That's what makes these comparisons to Europe so laughable.
Cellulosic ethanol is another option. We'd have to import most of it though. But, if I had ready access to it, I would use it myself right now, even if it cost more than gasoline or ethanol (within reason).
In the meantime, I've been through "hell" with my own health and feeling the financial burden of not having everything "covered," of fighting to get reimbursed, and of lacking a deduction up to a certain point. You'd think I, of all people, would have natural empathy. And I do. But implementation is another matter altogether, and the economist in me sees what's coming down the road. About gives me a heart attack.
Mr. Price wrote:
Sagarin, I'll be with you so long as you're willing to admit that military spending needs to be cut back too.
Military spending is what keeps us going as a country.
We police the world and let our kids die, and the world takes our IOUs aka $$s in return.
Without the muscle we would be in the debtor's prison unable to pay outstanding debts.
Isn't there some state healthcare system in Oregon?
here by inteligent design wrote:
Military spending is what keeps us going as a country.
We police the world and let our kids die, and the world takes our IOUs aka $$s in return.
Without the muscle we would be in the debtor's prison unable to pay outstanding debts.
We may yet get there.
Sagarin wrote:
Here's the problem. I would love nothing more than to extricate ourselves from the Middle East, but that ain't happening until we are energy independent. And I don't see current policies cultivating or even encouraging such independence. GE is to Obama what Halliburton was accused of being to Bush with their cute little solar and wind projects. Nuclear (think ceramic technology and thorium reactors) could be viable in 20 years with a subsidy. In the meantime, we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, and we could be retrofitting our fleet to buy those 20 years. Wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro can all be part of the peripheral mix. But wind and solar are a pipe dream right now in terms of scalability and will be for quite some time. Technology will ultimately solve these problems if you let it and don't starve the innovators of badly needed fuel with excessive government regulation and bureaucracy, while subsidizing everyone else. That's what makes these comparisons to Europe so laughable.
Moreover, in a global economy, energy security becomes everyone's problem. A utopian little autocracy isolated from the world may sound cute, but it sure as hell ain't pragmatic, nor does it raise the average standard of living. Quite the opposite.
When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options," says Dr. Salomeh Keyhani. She and Dr. Alex Federman, both internists and researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors. They surveyed them from June right up to early September
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960
Sagarin wrote:
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:But you're wrong when you say I have to chose between Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. I'm not a Republican. But if the choice is Paul or Obama, that's a no brainer.
B-I-N-G-O.
You lose all credibility with your belief that Ron Paul would be a good leader of the free world. He has a few good ideas, but for the most part is a crackpot. Yeah, it's "cute" that you like him and his radicalism.
And this is just downright silly:
"Here's the problem. I would love nothing more than to extricate ourselves from the Middle East, but that ain't happening until we are energy independent. And I don't see current policies cultivating or even encouraging such independence. GE is to Obama what Halliburton was accused of being to Bush with their cute little solar and wind projects"
So we need energy independence, but you basically mock several strong ideas for the future that could create jobs, help us with energy independence, and cut pollution. And your GE/Haliburton analogy falls apart on many levels.
Ron Paul? Really??? Now THAT is a good one!
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
Some predictably partisan stuff...
Lance, we get it. You are infatuated with this president. You don't need to blather on and on and on about it.
The point being made here is that we need a gov't that gets the NEED to rein in spending, address the off-balance sheet liabilities, and check the Fed. If Obama gets religion and starts doing this stuff, then I will vote to re-elect him. But, so far he is pulling the same boondoggle spending, overzealous regulation, and tariff bullshit that prolonged the great depression (the market rebounded ENORMOUSLY during the Great D too before falling back again and floundering).
I have found it within myself to restrain the cute little dialogue with you lately, because, in many ways, you remind me of a young ME. And I admire your conviction. I was a flaming liberal in my early to mid-20s (I can only assume your about 24-27?) and had the same fervor. And it stayed that way until I got a graduate education in economics, had to recruit capital and hire/manage talent for the first time, and run my own business. Radically altered my view of the world. That said, I am willing to compromise as I've made readily apparent on these medical threads. I am a fiscal conservative, yes, and I see the storm brewing. I see the Golden Goose fleeing the nest.
You're always amazed that I sometimes "surprise you," with my advocacy of more gun control or stem cell research or separating church from state. Perhaps it is you that doesn't realize that YOU follow the partisan playbook TO A TEE. And I'm not sure if anyone ever told you, but just because you are a Democrat doesn't mean you have to fall in line lock, stock, and barrel. God Bless you Lance. I'm hoping you find inner peace.
By the way, you ignored my advocacy of nuclear/nat gas/cellulosic ethanol as well. I have a good friend who's a nuclear engineer and works at the Nevada test site. He voted for Obama. And he thinks Obama is making a colossal mistake in regards to his approach to the DOE and nuclear. He's correct.
One more point... I agree that Paul is a "fringe" candidate. I've always said that. But to set up this false choice between Obama and Palin or any of the other disingenuous strawman is ludicrous. Or that one had to vote for Obama OR McCain. heck, I did vote for Obama by throwing it to Paul, who would never have a chance in hell. Paul at least sees the economic future for what it is, UNLESS we rapidly change course. B-L-E-A-K.
Sagarin wrote:
One more point... I agree that Paul is a "fringe" candidate. I've always said that. But to set up this false choice between Obama and Palin or any of the other disingenuous strawman is ludicrous. Or that one had to vote for Obama OR McCain. heck, I did vote for Obama by throwing it to Paul, who would never have a chance in hell. Paul at least sees the economic future for what it is, UNLESS we rapidly change course. B-L-E-A-K.
and here's your cozy philosophy thrown right back to ya...
no politician can WIN an election in our current environment if they have to tell people "No" to spending, because NO means sacrifice - and the American people know how to sacrifice about as well as.... well you fill in the blanks.
You are going to have less and less fiscal conservatives at the helm because the American public isn't going to vote for them.
Just like the teabaggers that won't "give up" their Medicare or Medicaid...or roads...or their senior centers...or their big trucks...or their veterans memorials - they want to point fingers at how our public officials are spenders - when they don't know how to save a penny themselves and also don't understand how to get ahead in life. These people aren't conservatives! Shit, they are more like communists!
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
You lose all credibility with your belief that Ron Paul would be a good leader of the free world.
You know what would be nice? A president who thinks he's the leader of the United States and NOT the leader of the whole world. It would be especially nice if he also operated within the restraints of the Constitution.
BTW, while Sagarin and I share many of the same ideas, we're not the same person. You might want to remember that when you respond.
legally blonde wrote:
and here's your cozy philosophy thrown right back to ya...
no politician can WIN an election in our current environment if they have to tell people "No" to spending, because NO means sacrifice - and the American people know how to sacrifice about as well as.... well you fill in the blanks.
You are going to have less and less fiscal conservatives at the helm because the American public isn't going to vote for them.
Just like the teabaggers that won't "give up" their Medicare or Medicaid...or roads...or their senior centers...or their big trucks...or their veterans memorials - they want to point fingers at how our public officials are spenders - when they don't know how to save a penny themselves and also don't understand how to get ahead in life. These people aren't conservatives! Shit, they are more like communists!
Which is why of course, I've constantly advocated a viable third party, for better or worse (I don't disagree with you by the way, so I don't know what you mean by cozy little philosophy). I no longer think we are the Republic that our framers astutely established way back in history. We are almost closer to fascism really.
But, sooner or later, we are going to be forced to get religion. Our gluttony with regard to food, energy, and credit is going to bite us in the ass (it is already happening). Of course, technological innovation will mitigate a lot of this IF WE LET IT, but the philosophy that government will solve all of our problems, take care of us from cradle to grave, provide a shelter over our heads, and otherwise give us all of these goodies for FREE is utterly absurd. You are your OWN BEST GOVERNMENT.
And, yes, the last Prez was accused of flouting the Constitution. And so is this one. BRM is correct about that. And until I see him change his tack with regard to restitution, redistribution, and reconstitution, my attitude won't change. People forget that the American Dream is called that for a reason. It is a bit of a fantasy, NOT ATTAINABLE by everyone. We would do well not to forget that. Because when we (both sides of the aisle) resist it or otherwise re-engineer it, we get massive debacles many years later. And we have another one on the way, rooted precisely in the policies we are currently enacting.
This is good:
Its member supported and I dont think it takes advertising so its not influenced by corporations.
Also, these: