dmagicglock

holy thread resurrection batman

good thing we have helen thomas to cover it all

today was her bday too! I wonder how she feels about universal healthcare since she'd be the first to go under the new system lol

Right wing media gets in a tizzy too. People just choose to pay attention to whatever serves their cause...on both sides.

I can agree with your comment "generally speaking" but specifically with concern to the joker illustration, I could not find one right wing outcry about it (prior to today), or left wing commentaries saying it went too far.

The electoral college is necessary as it keeps one densely populated area from having undue influence in the presidential election. Politics are local, even if you're electing a national candidate and the electoral college balances that out.

I posted that map earlier to show that the urban areas had undue influence on the last election.

http://philhardwickblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/2008_election_map-counties.jpg

I know someone else said something about gore getting the popular vote and bush still getting elected, so it looks like its broke either way.

I saw this quote from steve forbes... haha

"The flat tax would be so simple, you could fill it out on a post card. A post card that would say, in effect, having a wonderful time; glad most of my money is here."

lets hope communism has reduced their navy to the same subs as the drug cartels...

They're just here for support to help Comrade Obama when his plans go into effect

literally

questions, comments, concerns?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/world/05patrol.html?_r=1

It's not. I just thought it was funny because someone posted one of Obama like that. I just happened to stumble across it. Carry on.

I saw the vanity fair article today, but it didn't even make the news when they had that in their magazine last year (when W. was in office). I just thought it was amusing of the double standard, when someone did the same thing to Obama the left wing media was in a tizzy.

Then the debate is really about whether we think it's worthwhile for us to try and keep building cars at all in this country- I would rather see us lose a little money (although I'd prefer we get our cash back out of a short-term investment) in order to bludgeon our companies into some kind of modernity rather than see the US totally stop making cars because our huge companies died of their own stagnant thinking.

Think about it, though- what really happens if we just said," They failed, so fuck 'em."? Would a new American car company be able to get up to speed against entrenched companies like Honda or Toyota? Or would we just have to more or less accept that imports are the only cars available anymore?

Interesting thought experiment, anyway.

And anyway, why shouldn't give our own companies an advantage (and a benefit for keeping their jobs here-- that part would have to be included)?

Just like when any other competitor fails, the one that remains picks up more market share.. would probably repurpose GM/ford/chrysler facilities in the US and many of the people that lost their jobs would get new jobs at Toyota or Honda because they would have an increase demand for their product and would need additional employees, facilities to meet the necessary production. If you decrease the incentive for "foreign" companies to do business here by playing favorites with the domestics, we end up losing out in the bigger picture because nobody would invest in the U.S. Market because there's no incentive and the risks would outweigh the rewards. Then we end up losing all the tax revenue from the foreign companies to try and make our domestic companies succeed.

+1 to Todd

Most people stop listening to me after I say it but oh well.... I don't vote for president.

The electoral college is flawed and will constantly under represent the people. Why should 1% of voters in CA have more say than 100% of voters in RI? Just because CA has more residents? Sorry I have a major problem with that.

Discount, discredit, or disregard me if you choose to, but nothing any of you say will change my feelings on this.

+1 If you look at a county by county breakdown of the last election, McCain won so many more counties but because the urban vote went to obama, apparently it represented "America".

Biggest drop in tax revenues since 1932!? Yet we're trying to pass billions of dollars in government programs!?

heard about this on talk radio today but its not making a lot of shockwaves in the mainstream media hmmm?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/03/BUAL1939IG.DTL&type=business

"The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.

The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.

Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession's impact: Individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time.

The last time the government's revenues were this bleak, it was 1932.

"Our tax system is already inadequate to support the promises our government has made," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury Department official in the Reagan administration who is now vice president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

"This just adds to the problem."

While much of Washington is focused on how to pay for new programs such as overhauling health care - at a cost of $1 trillion over the next decade - existing programs are feeling the pinch, too.

Social Security is in danger of running out of money earlier than the government projected just a few months ago. Highway, mass transit and airport projects are at risk because fuel and industry taxes are declining.

The national debt already exceeds $11 trillion. And bills just completed by the House would boost domestic agencies' spending by 11 percent in 2010 and military spending by 4 percent.

Is there a way out of the financial mess?

A key factor is the economy's health. The future of current programs - not to mention the new ones Obama is proposing - will depend largely on how fast the economy recovers from the recession, said William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center.

"The numbers for 2009 are striking, head-snapping. But what really matters is what happens next," he said. "If it's just one year, then it's a remarkable thing, but it's totally manageable. If the economy doesn't recover soon, it doesn't matter what your social, economic and political agenda is. There's not going to be any revenue to pay for it."

Ron Paul FTW!

thats cool he said something to you, I thought he was going to beg you for money. I get crackheads asking me for money there on brown and stewart street all the time. On a random note, doesn't that jimmy johns make sandwiches faster than humanly possible?

I can't believe this didn't make it to the mainstream media sooner... This is from 2003 and it shows what Obama's real intentions are (a single payer system)... aww barry wants to get rid of competition and the private insurance companies after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

i want this as a tshirt

real life does fit on a tshirt

barney frank isn't in prison? what about his boyfriend and all the fannie mae and freddie mac scandals?

justin i found a tshirt for you

sorry couldn't resist!

but nobody is asking for complete anarchy... we just want LESS government, not NO government at all. Where as the communists/socialists/liberals have already taken over the private means of production here and are trying to take over more and redistribute more and more wealth and benefits. You can compare a conservative paradise to somalia, but then i'll have to compare a modern liberal paradise to say North Korea, which is sooo much better than Somalia.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat,

but her father was a staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition

to high taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked how she was doing in school.

She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time and never had time to

go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of

spending all her time studying. On top of that, the part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time

for anything else.

He asked, 'How is your friend Mary?' She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never

studied, but was very popular on campus, didn't have a job, and went to all the parties. She was always

complaining about not having any money, but didn't want to work. Why, she often didn't show up for classes

because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and

given it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA. Then, she could

also give her friend half the money she'd earned from her job so that her friend would no longer be broke. The

daughter angrily fired back, 'That wouldn't be fair. I worked really hard for my grades and money, and Mary just

loafs. Why should her laziness and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I've worked for?' The father

slowly smiled and said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party'."

haha mine as well...

I saw this and voted.. thought the results were surprising. I figured a left wing media outlet would have higher grades for their "report" card.

http://reportcard.cnn.com/

I am not sure how they do their math tho' because if you mouse over some of the states, that have a higher letter grade than they should if you do traditional GPA type calculations. Higher meaning they had a C instead of a D. Anyways tho' I was surprised at how much everyone is pretty disenfranchised with the government right now. I was also disappointed that they didn't have a question about the democratic leadership in congress, and just had one about the republicans. But some bias is to be expected.

Uhm no, honey, I'm a child/grandchild of real Americans... veterans of WWII, Viet Nam, Tuskegee Airmen, plus 10 generations born in Ohio (how many you got?) ... I'm here to stay, I'm afraid

Okay convince yourself you're american by the blood that your ancestors shed not your contribution.

Ok, I'm listening... how many Americans are without health care, that you know of, Mr. Man? 5, 10 people? 20? How many would it take to make it worth your little while?

Although.. The Center on Budget and Policy in Washington DC (a nonprofit, non-partisan organization) says in 2006, 46 million AMERICANS are uninsured. It got that information from the US Census Bureau. (do they count illegals? ionno!)

The US Census Bureau doesn't ask if you're here legally, illegally, documented, undocumented, they just ask if you're living here. That being said...

There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.

Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There’s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.

Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.

Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.

Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.

The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:

U.S. citizens;

with income below 300% of poverty;

not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;

and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.

That's great, if you're a fine, strapping young man like yourself. But what if you're 5 years old? What if your company laid you off? What if you're 92 and a half, in a wheelchair with 2 cataracts? Oh well, screw off? Pull yourself by your bootstraps, huh? Or worse yet, what if you HAD insurance but they wont cover your pre-exsting condition? You can't go "get a damn job" because your condition is STILL preexisting, but now you just took a pay cut. I'm sorry I just can't screw over my fellow American people like that. Not greedy and self-centered enough, I guess

what if this, what if that? sometimes life sucks, and you deal with it. America is the land of opportunity. Not the land of handouts. We make opportunity for success available to everyone, so that you can go out on your own and get it. It doesn't mean we should hand it to you.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. –George Bernard Shaw

I would really think you would be happy about this little facet, as it isn't that far from the status quo (which, by your arguments, you largely support with some peripheral changes like tort reform).

Since you are clearly conservative minded, and believe in the conservation of wealth to the individual vs government, let me ask you which of these two scenarios you would rather have.

1: You go to the hospital after getting rear-ended by some asshole with no insurance who flees the scene. Your case ends up getting reviewed by the staff doctor (otherwise known as medical review, common for higher-dollar claims) who is paid by the insurance company, and who's corporate responsibiliy it is to make value to his shareholders by maximizing profits. For whatever reason, they initially deny your claim. The other guy has no insurance and you can't find him, so you are stuck with appealing your claim, AND the deductible if it's finally approved. You get better, and have a lighter wallet as a result.

2: You go to the hospital after getting rear-ended by some asshole with no insurance who flees the scene. Your case ends up getting reviewed by a panel of doctors who answer to the government, who's responsibility it is (for purposes of this scenario) to provide healthcare to Americans. You get better.

you're missing the point, and your scenario makes a LOT of assumptions. Who's to say the government will cover it anymore than the private industry? The real point is that the President should not have direct executive authority over the private medical sector, or the banks, or the car industry etc... It removes the checks and balances from our system.