Obama

[Chip]

With recent items that have coemto light such as his association with a known terrorist William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground and his priest Rev. Write (who is still his spiritial advisor) hate filled speech having an influance over Obama. Let us not forget his wife having no respect for America.

Is Obama President worthy?

I say no.

[kyleh]

One of the candidates is worthy? I need to watch the news more.

Guessing Obama was probably about 11 years old when he helped found the Weather Underground, if that's true. :)

[Chip]

lol... you know kids back then were EVIL!!!

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/20/MermaidMan.PNG

[OmegaBob]

ooo! I havent heard about either the terrorist or the wife thingy before. Please share info!!!

[BlackBeard]

The Reverend (not priest) is no longer his spiritual advisor. He stopped working with Obama the same day this became big news on the networks.

I don't care about what a 'friend' of his did, or says either. And the remarks from the Reverend weren't off base anyway. Truth hurts though and people don't want to hear it. I know some people can't believe he'd say "God Damn America" but listen to what he's saying before he says that, you think God would like to Bless a country killing as many as we do? And having as many hungry/poor treated the way we treat them? He's not just hate mongering.

Like Obama said though, he doesn't stand for those ideals, and knows that he's grown up in a relatively better society than his Pastor had.

Even if I despised these new events that have come in for Obama, I'd still say he's more worthy than Hilary. Really dislike her political style, and her willingness to let money stop what she says she's going to do (both with healthcare, and NAFTA to name a couple things she's gone back on for money, or her past shows her backing that she claims she's not for now). She's the typical politician, Obama could end up being the typical politician but I'd rather take a maybe than a definitely.

[Chip]

After 20+ years of being the families spiritial advisor you don't just stop one day. He may not be thought of as a spiritial advisor but you know he will still have Obama's ear when it comes to matters and ideas.

True that you should not judge the person by the actions of his friends but we have every right to judge him on the types of people he associates with.

Mr. Ayers wrote a memoir, "Fugitive Days," published in 2001, and on the day of the September 11 terrorist attacks, he was quoted by the New York Times as saying: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Information on Weatherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29

So your saying that there is truth in that White America is keeping black americans hooked on drugs? Has developed Aids and infected blacks?

first off there is free will and common sense. Don't do drugs. For God's sake own up to your actions and stop trying to blaim other people or races. If you continue down this road then rapist would be the victom because that woman or child dressed provocativly. Murderers would say a game or movie made them kill.

You are aware that aids came from monkeys. It was more than likely spread when poachers skinned them or the other thought is some tribes in africa eat monkeys and it was transmitted that way. The earlies known symptoms of aids appears to have been during the 60's. You know. the time of "free love"

Let's then take a look at who the church gives awards too. Lois Ferikkan. Now there is a symbol of sanity and stability. Oh wait he said "White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet." and that a black scientist invented white people who are all EVIL!

I wouldnt put up with crap like this from teh other end of the isle from the likes of David Duke but when from others it is ok and just exposing some great truth.

[kyleh]

In case you missed what I was saying before, Obama couldn't be one of the founding Weathermen at his age. The Weathermen started in 1969, Obama was born in 1961.

Also worth noting that the terrorist actions of the Weathermen ended in 1975 when Obama was 14.

Simple googling seems to reveal that Ayers is now a hero college professor in Obama's hometown, and he didn't even meet Obama until 1999 or so. source (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html)

As to the preacher, guilt by association is silly. I work with a guy who is a card carrying communist who constantly espouses the beauty of communism, does the fact that I don't shun him make me a communist sympathizer? :)

I'm not even defending Obama, but it's important to apply critical thinking to everything you read. Including, of course, this.

[Chip]

I'm sorry. I thought you were kidding about the age thing. I did not mean to imply that he was a member of that organization. I do mean to imply that his choice of friends is questionable. I do not believe in guilt by association but if these are the types of people he is going to hang around with then I fear what kind of people he is going to put into office. What kind of damage do you think people of that mentality would do if they were placed in a judicial role?

There are some major differences between the two. The major one being one is simply the discussion of an idea (ie communism) and the other is the execution of a violent act which could have caused the death of innocent people(Ayers). The same goes for people who incite racial hatred (Wright).

[kyleh]

Ayers is a college professor, if you want to keep him from poisoning the well, you should probably stop him from teaching impressionable kids that bombing places is a good idea. hehe I doubt he's going to turn a senator into a bomb maker in 10 years of acquaintanceship, but who knows how many future unabombers are coming out of the college? :)

Communism has caused a lot more pain and death in the world than inner-city blacks believing that the government is poisoning them with crack or AIDs. Of course I guess it doesn't matter too much that I fraternize with communists, liberals, and conservatives alike since I could never be bothered to participate in the democratic process, much less serve my country by running for public office. Freedom FTW. :)

[Chip]

No but if he has access to Obama, if Obama becomes President, which most of us would not have then he could influence policy.

could never be bothered to participate in the democratic process, much less serve my country by running for public office. Freedom FTW.

You know it is kinda funny. I wish I had never screwed up my past because I think I would run for public office.


You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

[BlackBeard]

After 20+ years of being the families spiritial advisor you don't just stop one day. He may not be thought of as a spiritial advisor but you know he will still have Obama's ear when it comes to matters and ideas.

True that you should not judge the person by the actions of his friends but we have every right to judge him on the types of people he associates with.



Information on Weatherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29

So your saying that there is truth in that White America is keeping black americans hooked on drugs? Has developed Aids and infected blacks?

first off there is free will and common sense. Don't do drugs. For God's sake own up to your actions and stop trying to blaim other people or races. If you continue down this road then rapist would be the victom because that woman or child dressed provocativly. Murderers would say a game or movie made them kill.

You are aware that aids came from monkeys. It was more than likely spread when poachers skinned them or the other thought is some tribes in africa eat monkeys and it was transmitted that way. The earlies known symptoms of aids appears to have been during the 60's. You know. the time of "free love"

Let's then take a look at who the church gives awards too. Lois Ferikkan. Now there is a symbol of sanity and stability. Oh wait he said "White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet." and that a black scientist invented white people who are all EVIL!

I wouldnt put up with crap like this from teh other end of the isle from the likes of David Duke but when from others it is ok and just exposing some great truth.


There's proof that the CIA and Whitehouse were involved in bringing cocaine into Los Angeles (specifically the non-white parts) in the 80's, to fun the Contra's in the Panamanian war. Proof that Reagan and Bush looked the other way with Noriega selling drugs to the US as well. So when you ask if I believe that the government had a hand in keeping black people down, yes I do believe it.

Are they still? I can't say, this sort of information never surfaces during the fact -- but with Meth being the main problem in the US today, it's everyone's problem. It's easy to say "don't do drugs", teh will of everyone isn't strong enough not to do what their peers do. And when the government lies to us about the dangers of some drugs, it makes people think they're lying about all the drugs (e.g. Marijuana is just as addictive as Meth, PCP, crack etc..., it's on the same schedule. Some people would smoke pot and probably think if the government says this is bad then Crack can't be that bad either since pot wasn't).

Not justifying taking the drugs jsut showing how one might think of drugs with the government's 'word' on things.

As for the rest of teh comments, everyone decides what word they trust. I believe HIV didn't come from a Lab, but I can't prove it, so I'll let whoever wants to believe it was invented in a Lab believe it. I mean sure I can point to reports, but someone could just as easily point to a report funded by Farrakhan. Since I can't refute it personally, I, like the person I may be arguign against, am going off of the opinion of someone else that we trust.

The truth is only as true as we hope it to be.

For the sake of argument I bet we could find something that said HIV was created in a lab through testing used on monkey's as subjects and then accidentally crossed over into the human population too. Scientists do research pathologies and create new stuff all the time (and it's usually kept under tight control. But who knows what happened 60 years ago?).

I'm just trying to make the point that just because 90% of the people in the world believe something to be true, doesn't mean that it is. And I have no problem with someone believing something so long as it does not harm/injure others.

Half of the things the Reverend said are based in a fact that all of the black half of my family would tell you exists still to this day. Does it make everything he said true? Not IMO. But to taht Reverend it is a fact he's come to through his experience and what he's seen and decided to believe.

Still, that's the job of a reverend, to be passionate and fiery about what they preach. He definitley is. I find it funny that the news is sticking to this so hard...some conspiracy theorists might say it's the white people trying to keep Obama down (and when people like that say "white people" they don't mean all white people. It's just like saying "the man", the people in power are the ones that perpetuate racism...).

Show me proof that Obama thinks that way, and I would say that he doesn't deserve to be President. But I've heard a lot of crazy **** in my 28 years on this planet. Some that could be on tape for all I know. I would hope people wouldn't hold it against me that I was listening to the person, even if they were my father, or Pastor, or best friend.

[kyleh]

You know it is kinda funny. I wish I had never screwed up my past because I think I would run for public office.

That's the very reason I won't vote. I refuse to fool myself into believing that politicians have no shame, so as long as they keep representing that they have never done anything wrong, I will never cast a vote. Everybody is a teenager at some point, teenagers all do stupid things to gain life experience. Any adult that grows from a teen that has never broken a rule is not a person that I would consider a leader, so they don't deserve my vote. Any adult who will not freely admit the mistakes of his/her past lacks a spine so they won't get my vote either.

I would, however, vote for a human if one ever runs for office. (I did, after all, vote for Perot. That was the only vote I've ever cast. :))

[Alaric]

All presidential candidates are beneath contempt.

[OmegaBob]

1 - What about the wife? Splain her sitch!

2 - Anyone who believes that our government was behind 9/11, should:

a) be /bonked on the noggin'
b) read this: There ia no 9/11 conspiracy you morons (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)
c) watch this:
saHs6J0OXVI

3 - ANYBODY who votes for Hilary is casting a vote for video game censorship... which then leads censorship in all other forms of entertainent (and people claim that Hilary is a liberal - ha!). So my mantra is, ANYBODY BUT HILARY!

4 - As for Obama, I have no opinion on him.

5 - McCain, I have no opinion on as well

6 - I may cast my vote for Nader this year (just so I can hear the cry baby Democrats at the polling place whine about how he 'stole votes" from them last time. LOSERS! Buahahahaha!

Now splain the wife stuff or I shall thow anthrax spores all over the country then place the blame on whitey!

[Alaric]

Hilary = Self explanatory.

McCain = A liberal who calls himself a republican for some reason. Against 1st and 2nd amendments.

Obama = A 1-hit-wonder. Delivered a good speech once, and has been riding it ever since. Didn't do ANYTHING in his 3 years in the senate. Has ties to some extremely questionable people. Likes to talk, likes to travel. Hasn't done jack-schmidt for the state that elected him.

[stingray]

My take on the coming election.

If you like the way the country is run right now and would like to see more of it, vote McCain. Let the economy speak for itself, right now it's going to hell in a hand-basket.

If you want to get another 8 years with Bill Clinton in the white House, knowing full well that this naughty boy now has even more time on his hands, vote for Hillary.

If you want to show the world that you can put your money where your mouth is and actually have an articulate, charismatic, educated black man as your president, then vote for Obama. Yes, he's young and inexperienced, but at least he's got the capacity to learn. :D (I would have seen a man like Colin Powell become president, but I guess he knew it's a futile endeavor.)

But I have no illusion, "this election is about change and the results will show that an aging white man is all the change the American majority is ready for."

[kyleh]

Here is the deal with Obama's wife:

She said:

linky (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html)

Which was interpreted by opposing pundits and politicians as meaning that she is only proud because there is a black person running for office or whatever.

In response to the flames, Barack says:

linky (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUE3KimrVGi5nbHhbsUc7isWlfMgD8UTP1H80)

and Obama's wife tried to mend fences by being more specific in what she meant by saying:

linky (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/20/politics/main3855129.shtml)

In response to the original statement that Obama's wife made, Cindy McCain made the comment "I have, and always will be, proud of my country." Cindy McCain is 54 years old, and she was born in 1953. Racial segregation was officially declared unconstitutional in the United States in 1968. That means that Cindy Mccain was proud of legislated racial segregation, which was still fairly rampant up until her early teens and continues under the table even today (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/23/turner.prom/index.html).

Uh oh, no I didn't! (Yes you did!)

Considering that Obama has yet to put race at the forefront of his campaign, there sure is an awful lot of hateful racist crap (http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011) being said about him. Most of the stuff on that page pretty much nulls all of the bad things Alaric said about him as well with easily clicky references. :)

Death to critical thinking! Long live passionate and well-meaning but ultimately hateful action!

[kyleh]

Also, she gave the speech twice. The first time, she said essentially what she claimed to be saying in her apology. It's difficult to find video of the original, so you will have to be happy seeing the two statements back to back in chronological order in the little thumbnail on the left of this site (http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2008/02/obamas-pride-speech-es/).

It's difficult to find evidence of both speeches because everybody on the internet is so busy slobbering over her being unamurkan.

P.S. Everything I know about Barack Obama (other than the fact that he looked really funny dancing with Ellen Degeneres on her show), I learned from arguing in this thread, Wikipedia, and Google. Thanks for the exercise, Chip. :)

P.P.S. I have no opinion about Cindy McCain, I gave that interpretation as an example of how easy it is to paint whatever picture you want with the right snippet of words.

[gorilla325]

i thought president is just a name tag... there's an invisible hand behind all things...lol

yeah...and when i saw the title, i was thinking...obama??? bin laden or barack??? lol

dont' really know barack's policy, the only thing i know about him is that he love to talk about change. almost like the same thing MA governer on duty said in his last campaign.

but seriously...picking meccain is like picking a vice president, who knows when is that veteran gonna pass out during some speech... :p

obama somehow reminded me of lincoln, if you are interested to know. so skinny...and lincoln did not do much in his senator years either. :p

hilary...well, there's an invisible hand behind all things...lol

[BlackBeard]

I knew what Mrs Obama said the first time she said it, but I also knew it would be blown out of proportion. You can't say things that sound bad when edited to be "....first time....Proud of my country". It's bad the way politics is. And all she was saying is that she's REALLY proud.

I took that to mean that she's been proud, but now she's exceptionally proud because of the hope and bringing people together.

Le sigh, politics....

[JadedMage]

Kinda funny how the republicans seem to spend so much more energy attacking Obama than Clinton.

Guess that shows who the bigger threat to McCain is...

[Chip]

obama somehow reminded me of lincoln, if you are interested to know. so skinny...and lincoln did not do much in his senator years either. :p



oh no you did not just steal my thought from 3D gamers.


I can't go for Obama or Hillary. Obama hasn't done anything and Hillary will bankrupt the US faster than Bush ever could. By what they are imposing will create double digit inflation and a substantial increase in what you pay in taxes because you and I will be supporting everyone else. This will be, IMO, Jimmy Carter part II. High umemployement and taxes, fuel shortages and believe it or not people around the world will still hate us.

I like Huckaby's Fare Tax policy and I believe he carries himself very well and is very well spoken even if I do not believe in everything he does.

I like Mccain because I believe he is really the only cannidate who can work well with both Republicans and Democrats but like Huckaby I have some issues with his past judgement.

I like Obama (yes, I said it). He has some truely great speach writters and his presentation is spot on. He carries himself very well and if you have watched his speaches he reminds me of the old black and white movies about Abraham Lincoln. His manorisms and the way he carries himself reminds me of that so every time I think of Obama I think of Lincoln. He has also credited Regan which drew allot of complaining from the other Democrats so standing up to the others earns some real points with me. Overall, however I feel his policies would be disasterous and bordering dangerous.

I hate Hillary. There is just no two ways about it. she is a liar and a creep. I also find that, through antidotal evidence, that she is excesively vindictive and mean spirited. The people she had/has surrounding her are just as bad like Sandy Burger (however you spell that traitors name) and the donation farmer Cho. In fact I dislike her entire family. You want a transparent administration and yet she holds more private meetings than Cheney. She refuses to talk to the press most of the time. She pimps (yes I said pimps) her daughter to stump for her and Chelsy is so stuck up that she will talk about her mom, shows up at public events and when she is asked any questions she says I don't talk to press. Even a child press reporter for a school paper. One last thing about Hillary... Whitewater. Missing papers and the person involved with the missing papers is now incharge of her campaign. Be afraid of this one.

[OmegaBob]

Kinda funny how the republicans seem to spend so much more energy attacking Obama than Clinton.

Guess that shows who the bigger threat to McCain is...
Its also kinda funny how Clinton also attacks Obama... just as funny as democrats that still whine about Nader. :)

@ K: Thx for all those links! I can't wait to dig into all of them!

[Alaric]

Obama is a socialist bastard. He promises everything to everyone. How the hell is he gonna deliver? Raise taxes to 100%? Put 10% of the population in concentration camps as free labor? May as well grow a mustache then and become a regular Stalin.

[kyleh]

My guess is he just won't deliver. "Read my lips!" and all that. :)

[Chip]

As I said. Carter X2. I don't know how many people here were around then or remember but even as a child I sure do.

By what they are imposing will create double digit inflation and a substantial increase in what you pay in taxes because you and I will be supporting everyone else. This will be, IMO, Jimmy Carter part II. High umemployement and taxes, fuel shortages and believe it or not people around the world will still hate us.

[JadedMage]

Obama is a socialist bastard. He promises everything to everyone. How the hell is he gonna deliver? Raise taxes to 100%? Put 10% of the population in concentration camps as free labor? May as well grow a mustache then and become a regular Stalin.


Um... okay...? THAT sure came out of left field.

Edit: Right field, I mean. Sorry.

[Chip]

Actually that is correct. Obama is for big government, as is Hillary. They want to expand government into all facets of our lives like governmental healthcare. They would expand it to the point of requiring you to be insured just to get a job and that is Hillary's words. Seriously, people need to stop getting sucked into the hypre and take a realistic look at what they are voting for. The only way that he can get his socialist agendy paid for is by repealing the Bush tax cuts which affect lower and middle class people as much as those in teh top brackets. He would also need to double the currant tax rate which would cause double digit inflation. As it is they have already started to steal money from companies that they feel make too much money. He is also against the 2nd ammendment which goes against what out founding fathers put into the constitution.

First, Thomas Jefferson: No Freeman shall ever be disbarred from the use of arms. Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense, John Adams. The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed with Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, where the Government are afraid to trust their people with arms, James Madison. Arms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue if the law-abiding were deprived the use of private arms, Thomas Payne. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides from an unarmed man, may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man, Thomas Jefferson. Put that one in your pipe and smoke it when you're talking about arming people in schools. A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. They include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them, Richard Henry Lee. The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms, Samuel Adams. I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them, George Mason.

[kyleh]

Hillary is doing a good enough job of keeping the democrats split 50/50, so although it looks like Obama is a shoe-in, I wouldn't be too surprised if McCain pulled this one off.

[Chip]

I hope so. Of all the canidates he appears to be the most even handed.

[BlackBeard]

Actually that is correct. Obama is for big government, as is Hillary. They want to expand government into all facets of our lives like governmental healthcare. They would expand it to the point of requiring you to be insured just to get a job and that is Hillary's words. Seriously, people need to stop getting sucked into the hypre and take a realistic look at what they are voting for. The only way that he can get his socialist agendy paid for is by repealing the Bush tax cuts which affect lower and middle class people as much as those in teh top brackets. He would also need to double the currant tax rate which would cause double digit inflation. As it is they have already started to steal money from companies that they feel make too much money. He is also against the 2nd ammendment which goes against what out founding fathers put into the constitution.

Obama nor Hillary want to expand Healthcare via Government. Hillary's plan makes everyone HAVE to have HMO coverage through the already existing companies (I'm sure the large sums of money they've been lining her pockets with since she was First Lady has had something to do with that huge shift in her ideal since the first year as First Lady). Her plan is absolutely awesome for the shareholders of the HMO's and the CEO's of them as well. But bad for everybody else.

Obama wants to use the existing HMO structure but subsidize the companies via Federal Income for those that can't afford it. Also bad, but at least he's divulged the subsidization, Hilary is still tight lipped about what happens for the poor folks and Obama likes to assume (as I do, since she's being tight lipped) that her plan will garnish wages or fine those unable to pay. Very bad.

So yeah taxes probably would increase under Obama's plan (though not by more than a few %), as much of Obama's plan is just like Hilary's, I believe Hilary's is relying on peoples own income still (Obama just subsidizes those that can't pay). But the good news for her plan is that if that many more people are forced to get it (and the companies can't drop folks at the drop of a dime) the cost of healthcare should go down. Still though, I don't like government meshing with private in this fashion -- too much 'scratch my back, I'll scratch your back' potential corruption.

But I like both better than no universal healthcare plan. We are seriously lagging behind too many nations in this regard.

I know 'increasing taxes' is like a bad word in this country, but we (the US) is one of the least taxed countries in the world (that's a leading nation anyway), and we fail in every facet that competing countries excel in (like education, healthcare, infrastructure and even down to things like beautification of our local cities). We NEED to be taxed more IMHO, and it will be worth it if it increases to just 3-5% for the middle income and 8-14% for the high income (and 0% more for low income).

If then, at those rates we had healthcare, better infrastructure/mass transportation, and education I feel it would wholly be worth it (and the money you save on healthcare alone would be great for all but those without children. And though I don't have kids yet I still think it would be beneficial for our society as a whole). Too much of our country has been put on hold so people can line their pockets with cash. I hear a lot of people give that "it takes a village" line, but nobody wants to step up and put their money where their mouth is.

Bush's tax cuts will not affect lower or middle income people as much as the the high (100k+) crowd will feel. Some of the richest people in the nation think it's ridiculous the way it is now anyway and believe they should be taxed more (dollar for dollar Warren Buffet and Bill Gates get taxed less than any 'middle income' employee in their employ). Doctor's and Lawyers that make 150k+ wouldn't hurt that much if they just lived a little bit more modestly (1 or 2 cars instead of 3 or 4 for example...).

[kyleh]

If rich people wanted to be 'taxed more' they could just give money to the government. heh

My wife and I work hard (150k+ bracket) so we can have the things we want. If the guvmint is going to take it anyway, why strive for more? Better off taking a pay cut and staying at the top end of the lower tax bracket, most likely. Especially for those folks who sit in the range just a few k above a bracket marker.

One year my wife got a raise of 2-3% that bumped us up a bracket, and we had to pay almost 5k in extra taxes for a total loss of almost 2k per year. Thanks for nothing!

[JadedMage]

Speaking from experience, universal health insurance rocks. We do pay for it over here, not as a tax per se, but as a bit that is withheld from our paychecks. The amount withheld depends on your salary. But you never have to put off that nagging chest pain just because you can't afford to go unless you know it's for real. There is so much peace of mind in universal health insurance. That alone is worth the amount withheld each month.

And if big government is the alternative to the invasive government we've had for the past 8, then I'm all for it.

Besides, what's wrong with big government in a democracy? It does (ideally)serve to keep the corporate jackals from ripping our throats out.

But hearing people yell "socialist!" like that reminds me more of McCarthyist scare tactics than anything else. Even if he does have socialist tendencies (and I'm not arguing that one either way, since I'm not at all informed on the issue), he's not going to be ABLE to turn the United States into a China or a Russia. It would take a serious revolution to do that, and honestly, Americans on the average are too fat to revolt.

**** and moan, yes, but revolt? That takes a certain amount of physical fittness.

Plus, people in general have to be really unhappy to do that. Current (Republican lead?) economic woes aside, people are pretty satisfied with life over there.

[kyleh]

I think the big government IS the invasive government. I don't particularly fear corporate jackals, however.

[BlackBeard]

If rich people wanted to be 'taxed more' they could just give money to the government. heh

My wife and I work hard (150k+ bracket) so we can have the things we want. If the guvmint is going to take it anyway, why strive for more? Better off taking a pay cut and staying at the top end of the lower tax bracket, most likely. Especially for those folks who sit in the range just a few k above a bracket marker.

One year my wife got a raise of 2-3% that bumped us up a bracket, and we had to pay almost 5k in extra taxes for a total loss of almost 2k per year. Thanks for nothing!

She should have refused the raise (that's something to honestly think about doing when your employer offers a raise to you, and they will be more than happy to hear you say you can't accept it...if it's optional anyway). Or negotiated for more to balance out the new tax bracket. And yes I'm serious, my aunt refused a raise last year to avoid just that.

I guess you could just say **** it and go work two 35k a year jobs if you want to just 'give up'. But that doesn't make any sense now does it? So of course you're going to strive for more. What's a $2k when you make $150k? An extra month's mortgage (<3 California.....) and a night out?

Hope she gets another raise this year to help you out of the deep hole you're digging now :p.

[DPC]

Mccain promises more wars, I think two is one too many as it is. Big invasive government is already here, we can thank the Bush administration for that. Mccain definitely wouldn't draw it down, he's been a firm supporter of all things Bush for a while now. Also, a draft would be required to conduct more wars.

I'm down for universal healthcare.

I'm not sure what his position is on iraq, I'm assuming that he's going to keep our people there for the long haul. I'm not cool with that, and I don't think their families are cool with it either.

[kyleh]

What's a $2k when you make $150k? An extra month's mortgage (<3 California.....) and a night out?

The thing about $2k that a lot of people don't seem to understand is that no matter how much you make, $2k is $2k. That's actually 3 months worth of mortgage for us, or a nice vacation, a big TV, a large donation to charity, or a nice campfire. It shouldn't matter to you what we want to do with it, since we worked hard to make it. Both my wife and I have made minimum wage before, but we don't now. What's the difference between us and anybody else?

[Alaric]

Whoever wins I lose. I don't even think I will be voting. There is something inherently insulting about an offer to chose your own execution.

[gorilla325]

what...you vote for russian president, but not US president...:p

i did not see your post in 3dgamers, chip... that's an honest personal opinion.

those who think we could withdraw from iraq is brainless..

universal health care with a penalty on those poor, i hate it! it's the same as what MA has right now, a penalty... i think that's bad policy.

i think we should have warren buffet as president, he's so smart and brave and deligent...etc, that least that's what i heard about Rich people in Rich DAD's seminar...

[AlphaMoose]

Besides, what's wrong with big government in a democracy? It does (ideally)serve to keep the corporate jackals from ripping our throats out.

The only people who can rip your throat out are the government. Corporations can't force you to use their product or service, but the government sure can. And they can take your money. And throw you in jail. And so on and so forth.

I'd venture to say that corporations and a free market are 10x the democracy we currently have in America. Sure, some unscrupulous people will try to exploit the system, but THAT'S what I think our laws should ideally be preventing. Monopolies, cartels, price fixing-- THOSE are the real enemies. Not entrepreneurs and business owners.

I like to think of it like this (bad analogy alert!)-- Coca Cola is to Bush as New Coke is to the Iraq War. Only difference is that we aren't forced to buy Coca Cola for four years so they have to listen to consumer demands. Not that I think we should cave in to popular demand either, mind you. I don't think the average American is educated enough to make those kinds of decisions. They're swayed too easily by populist rhetoric and the words "hope" and "change".

We should elect a philosopher king ;)

[kyleh]

Subsidized sloth is just as dangerous as monopoly, imo.

Americans are swayed by comfort. When Americans are uncomfortable, they act. As bad as rhetoric would have you believe things are right now, people in general are comfortable enough that they have better things to worry about. That's just the way people work.

It seems a bit egotistical and broad to assume that Americans aren't smart enough to understand what's going on. The truth is, some people support what's going on, that's why it's happening.

[OmegaBob]

We should elect a philosopher king ;)
Like... ME!
:eek:

[AlphaMoose]

It seems a bit egotistical and broad to assume that Americans aren't smart enough to understand what's going on. The truth is, some people support what's going on, that's why it's happening.
I just find it hard to believe that a well educated public WOULD support subsidies (amongst other things, of course-- I'm just too lazy to reply more, I just bought Soulstorm =P).

[kyleh]

Sure, subsidized wellfare, subsidized healthcare, subsidized education, etc. Why do I go to work again? :)

[BlackBeard]

The thing about $2k that a lot of people don't seem to understand is that no matter how much you make, $2k is $2k. That's actually 3 months worth of mortgage for us, or a nice vacation, a big TV, a large donation to charity, or a nice campfire. It shouldn't matter to you what we want to do with it, since we worked hard to make it. Both my wife and I have made minimum wage before, but we don't now. What's the difference between us and anybody else?

So you agree with me. :) You're going to keep striving for more even if you get taxed a little bit more (in fact the tax is the reason you strive to make more).

[Chip]

I would say tax is more of a byproduct of wanting to earn more money and not the reason to earn more money. Wanting to help others less fortunate is a noble idea but it must be done with common sense. Taking money from people who have money and giving it to people who do not is stealing. Remember, charity begins at home. Besides America also gives more money to charity than any other country in teh world. Is it not better to give money to charities that you agree with than some bureaucratic agency to distribute and have no control over who gets what? That is what we have in store for us if we elect either of these two. Loss of choice.

[BlackBeard]

I said that in jest Chip :p. But you got the point that I was trying to make (I think?).

Charities are great...but they don't get enough money. That's why taxes and bureaucracy came about -- people are greedy and don't help the people who need it. It's not like people will just go and sit on their arse if they have free healthcare.

I guess I just have a different philosophy in that I want the government to help it's people since I know the people won't help the people. I mean we've alerady tried the system we're workign with now...it's failing us compared to other countries with higher taxes. I want to try something different. And don't worry, Obama nor Hillary will be changing the taxes to the degree that would make a serious impact the way I'd like anyway, our taxes may go up by at most 2%.

[kyleh]

The government IS people. That's a rediculous and pessimistic argument. If people don't help people, then why do people become firefighters? For the great pay? Why do charitable organizations exist, is it also for the great pay? Why did people care about New Orleans or New York?

What you are talking about is a feeling of entitlement that seems to go hand in hand with a lack of ambition. The only thing that seperates me from a welfare case with 8 kids is choices, why should I be held responsible if they aren't? Because they have a hard life raising the 8 kids they chose to have?

Ah well, it doesn't matter if I like it or not, feelings of entitlement are obviously embedded in over half the population. :) Enjoy my hard work I guess...

P.S. Tax is absolutely not the reason I work hard. I work hard because that's my job. I'm not sure what you meant there. Why not go ahead and pay my taxes if you are so gung ho? :)

[Chip]

h67yKinUgXs


Funny stuff but he does have a point. What is the saying... give a man a fish and he eats for a night but teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Governments should not be in the business of supporting and feeding the people. That is what families and organizations like churches are for.

[BlackBeard]

The government IS people. That's a rediculous and pessimistic argument. If people don't help people, then why do people become firefighters? For the great pay? Why do charitable organizations exist, is it also for the great pay? Why did people care about New Orleans or New York?

What you are talking about is a feeling of entitlement that seems to go hand in hand with a lack of ambition. The only thing that seperates me from a welfare case with 8 kids is choices, why should I be held responsible if they aren't? Because they have a hard life raising the 8 kids they chose to have?

Ah well, it doesn't matter if I like it or not, feelings of entitlement are obviously embedded in over half the population. :) Enjoy my hard work I guess...

P.S. Tax is absolutely not the reason I work hard. I work hard because that's my job. I'm not sure what you meant there. Why not go ahead and pay my taxes if you are so gung ho? :)

You're taking me too literally. People (individuals) do not help people out of the kidness of their hearts generally speaking; it's very rare that people do this. This is why we never have enoguh firefighters, or social workers. Some would, but others would leave for work they could Money drives most everyone. You can call me pessimistic, but it's the way of the world we live in here in teh states. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation, there wouldn't be potholes in the roads, schools would have every book adn computer they need, kids really wouldn't be left behind, everyone would be taken care of healthwise, and nobody would be going to sleep hungry tonight.

Look at it like this, your world could come crumbling down if you get diagnosed with cancer, have to get treatment in a hospital hundreds of miles from your job (making you take sick leave and hope yoru employer keeps giving you enough to pay rent and health 65k that the health insurance won't cover immediately), and then heaven forbid your wife gets into an accident. Universal Healthcare makes sure that no matter what happens you will not have that to worry about.

And I guess you didn't get my point about taxes...thought you would. Taxes are somethign always lingering in your mind, so when you take a job and take certain pay it's something that you're aware of and may pass up a job that would leave you further in the hole due to them or ask for a raise to make sure you would be better off. Like I said, I said it in jest, I was just jokingly saying that you work to pay taxes.

I'd gladly pay your taxes if the government made me do it through my own taxes :). But I'm one of those people that don't donate to charity's that I talk about not helping people unless there's something in it for me. Like most of the people in this country -- taxing us is the only way to get things done for the greater good, and for those that can't get things done themselves.

[BlackBeard]

h67yKinUgXs


Funny stuff but he does have a point. What is the saying... give a man a fish and he eats for a night but teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Governments should not be in the business of supporting and feeding the people. That is what families and organizations like churches are for.

Not askign for the government to feed people, just asking for universal healthcare, and higher taxes to pay for the fubared infrastructure we have and hopefuly better mass transportation, as well as better schools and teachers for our children.

Screw world hunger btw...we still have problems with hunger here. I'm a xenophobe when it comes to trying to help people. Do it here first before we go out and try to help others.

[kyleh]

You're taking me too literally. People (individuals) do not help people out of the kidness of their hearts generally speaking; it's very rare that people do this. This is why we never have enoguh firefighters, or social workers. Some would, but others would leave for work they could Money drives most everyone. You can call me pessimistic, but it's the way of the world we live in here in teh states. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation, there wouldn't be potholes in the roads, schools would have every book adn computer they need, kids really wouldn't be left behind, everyone would be taken care of healthwise, and nobody would be going to sleep hungry tonight.

So it's your assertion that people go hungry because the federal government doesn't feed them. My assertion is that if the programs that were in place were actually run efficiently, there wouldn't be a need for more money. Non profits do more for less every single day. Continuing to throw new money into the fed doesn't feed people, it feeds the fed.

Look at it like this, your world could come crumbling down if you get diagnosed with cancer, have to get treatment in a hospital hundreds of miles from your job (making you take sick leave and hope yoru employer keeps giving you enough to pay rent and health 65k that the health insurance won't cover immediately), and then heaven forbid your wife gets into an accident. Universal Healthcare makes sure that no matter what happens you will not have that to worry about.

I have personal experience with this. When my mother was dying of cancer, she had no insurance. In spite of that, she was able to find NPOs, government programs, test programs, hospital grants, churches, and private organizations that allowed her to get the healthcare that she needed. They were there for her because she looked for them, not because of the fed.

Personally, again, my world wouldn't come tumbling down because I have made good decisions. I wouldn't be able to buy as many video games to pass my time away from work, that would be the biggest impact to me.

And I guess you didn't get my point about taxes...thought you would. Taxes are somethign always lingering in your mind, so when you take a job and take certain pay it's something that you're aware of and may pass up a job that would leave you further in the hole due to them or ask for a raise to make sure you would be better off. Like I said, I said it in jest, I was just jokingly saying that you work to pay taxes.

No, I work so I can buy video games. I pay taxes because I have to. I give to charity because I want to.

I'd gladly pay your taxes if the government made me do it through my own taxes :). But I'm one of those people that don't donate to charity's that I talk about not helping people unless there's something in it for me. Like most of the people in this country -- taxing us is the only way to get things done for the greater good, and for those that can't get things done themselves.

The greater good of who? Like I said, enjoy my money. :)

Your perception of society and mine are the exact opposite. I see an entire society full of self-made victims who can't properly wipe without clear government sponsored instructions. There will never be enough help. There will never be enough taxes. There will never be a day when nobody is hungry. There will never be a day when nobody is sick. You are chasing dreams.

[gorilla325]

:p government is people... now that's a beautiful ideal.

[AlphaMoose]

Not askign for the government to feed people, just asking for universal healthcare, and higher taxes to pay for the fubared infrastructure we have and hopefuly better mass transportation, as well as better schools and teachers for our children.
Increasing taxes when we're already well on our way into recessionville isn't exactly the best idea. Take away farm subsidies and use the money subsidize healthcare for the extremely poor, but don't increase taxes to do it =P

As for education-- meh. We can't just throw money at the problem of poor teachers.

[BlackBeard]

So it's your assertion that people go hungry because the federal government doesn't feed them. My assertion is that if the programs that were in place were actually run efficiently, there wouldn't be a need for more money. Non profits do more for less every single day. Continuing to throw new money into the fed doesn't feed people, it feeds the fed. All those topics and that's the only one you're going to tackle? Non profits don't do much of anything here in California. They can help about 25% of the people that need it at best. Constantly turning people away because they don't have enough. Obviously they need more; and charitable people are a dime a dozen.

I have personal experience with this. When my mother was dying of cancer, she had no insurance. In spite of that, she was able to find NPOs, government programs, test programs, hospital grants, churches, and private organizations that allowed her to get the healthcare that she needed. They were there for her because she looked for them, not because of the fed.

Personally, again, my world wouldn't come tumbling down because I have made good decisions. I wouldn't be able to buy as many video games to pass my time away from work, that would be the biggest impact to me.

Sorry your mother had cancer; but that isn't quite the impact I was talking about -- luckily no other bad news came that caused money to be sapped away.

The mere fact that she made use of government programs lends credence to the idea of people needing help in those situations though. Wouldn't it be better to not have to worry about that? Imagine what could have happened if two more terrible things happened (it's a bad what if scenario -- but a scenario that happens to some).

People shouldn't have to deal with the headache of money in times like what your mother went through, having to spend time trying to find help. The help should just be there. Someone here already mentioned how wonderful it is for them to just go get anything checked out without worrying about the HMO covering it. That's how healthcare should be. Only hypochondriacs would be a real problem. But that's a small price to pay IMO.

No, I work so I can buy video games. I pay taxes because I have to. I give to charity because I want to.

Still taking me too literally... do you not have a funny bone? I'm being facetious with those remarks (and have said as much). You're too high strung :p.

The greater good of who? Like I said, enjoy my money. :)

Your perception of society and mine are the exact opposite. I see an entire society full of self-made victims who can't properly wipe without clear government sponsored instructions. There will never be enough help. There will never be enough taxes. There will never be a day when nobody is hungry. There will never be a day when nobody is sick. You are chasing dreams.

I agree our perceptions are different. But I believe there could be enough help though; because when I read about countries that have a lot less of the problems we do, the only thing that is different is the taxes and how the government spends that money. The taxed income in those countries seems to be just enough to keep healthcare "free" and worry-free, the infrastructure up to date (trains and roads), subsidies for power companies to not have brownouts because of 50 year old equipment, and education that is at least 5 grades ahead of our own in math and reading/writing skill (even in second languages).

Yes bad decisions lead to problems for families (like going to sleep hungry). And I don't believe the government nor anyone can possibly make it stop. But it can assist in those 3 key areas I continue to refer to. Healthcare. Infrastructure. Education. I don't know why you keep talking about food though, hunger is a problem brought on, in nations like America, by the people who are hungry themselves.

When I brought up food in my first paragraph, it was to talk about why money is the reason people help others. I was pionting out that if people wanted to help (and because you have a pension for taking me literally, take that to mean a majority of people, or better everyone) people wouldn't be going to sleep hungry. I don't believe and have never said that the government should take care of the hunger issues; and in the reply above yours rejected the idea of world hunger anyway. Like Sam said, move where the food is, and buy some or grow some; nobodies gonna feed you except your family.

[BlackBeard]

Increasing taxes when we're already well on our way into recessionville isn't exactly the best idea. Take away farm subsidies and use the money subsidize healthcare for the extremely poor, but don't increase taxes to do it =P

As for education-- meh. We can't just throw money at the problem of poor teachers.

Increasing taxes is unlikely to happen to a degree that it would impact anyone. But if we have 'free' healthcare, that's an extra $13k per year a lot of families can save, and an extra $4k a year single people can save. Sounds worth it to me for an extra $2k in taxes throughout the year.

Can't just throw money at teachers I agree, but like CEO's, more money brings better people to the job. Mainly though I would want the money spent on more teachers (same pay) larger scools (more classrooms, for smaller sizes) and more importantly every learning tool the school required within reason (computers, books, science equipment, and hell just pen cils and paper, lockers would be nice too).

[kyleh]

Healthcare. Infrastructure. Education.

To specifically address these three issues, infrastructure is not federal unless it's inter-state. If California has bad roads, then depending on what road it is that's a city or state issue. I don't remember a lot of potholes on any of the sections of the 101 I've driven on. Also, if California's greenies would allow the building of more power plants, which I'm sure infrastructure corps that want more money would be more than happy to do, then you guys wouldn't have any more brownouts. Most states are in that boat right now, the whole 'not in my backyard' ideal for refineries and power production. Most states just don't have the population of Cali so they are still at a surplus when it comes to power production. Texas hasn't built a power plant or a refinery in something like 40 years, and we have more wide open space than anybody.

The issue with education is not money, education programs are some of the best funded programs out there. The problem is that schools target teachers at standardized test scores and not at actual learning. Ask any teacher and they will tell you the same. My sister has been a public school teacher for 8 years here in Texas, and she's so frustrated with the test scores that she's pursuing a career in private schooling along with many many other new teachers. Older teachers stay where they are due to pension and not because they aren't frustrated. She has an entire lab full of science equipment that they don't even use (she's an earth sciences teacher) because she's too busy getting her inner city kids up to snuff for the TAAS test. She's had good results getting her 5th grade classes from a starting score in the mid 30th percentile up to a passable 85th percentile or so, but it takes her the whole year and nothing but a focus on the test questions. If you ask her, salary isn't a problem for teachers.

Of course childless peeps like me already take on a significant tax burden to make sure that other people's kids can read, while people who have kids get EIC and other tax breaks that equate to quite a bit of tax relief. One for all and all for one, right? The greater good (of others).

I'm not sure where the savings is going to come from when healthcare is socialized. Do you think there will be no impact to the economy when the gazillion dollar insurance biz is ended and federalized? Do you think that once people see the reality of waiting in line for specialized healthcare that they previously could have paid for they are going to care about the less ambitious?

2% isn't much, it's true, but as I said before 2% per president into perpituity is silly, especially without eliminating any of the waste. My statement about NPOs wasn't to say that they can compete directly with the government dollar for doller or service for service, my point was that they are forced by thier own nature to run lean or die. Efficiency is a must, and the feds have never had to deal with that. There's way more than a 2% tax hike worth of money being wasted by inefficient federal programs. Everybody knows that, but nobody has a problem with it.

Of course I have a sense of humor, although I suppose the subject is grim, this is just a fun debate to me. :)

Besides, you have to have a good sense of humor to enjoy life in America where fiscal conservatism is either dead or tied directly to telling people who they can marry and telling women what they can do with thier bodies. ;) That gaurantees that I won't vote for a candidate that believes what I do about money, and gaurantees that you get to keep spending my money. Comedy gold!

[BlackBeard]

Infrastructure has a lot more to do with the federal government than local -- I'm talking about highway and bridge construction subsidies, railway development subsidies (I think we're the only first world country without a high speed railway) and federally subsidized programs for mass transportation. Because we aren't going to get that done with the current system and states liek California billions in debt with it's hands tied. Also building better transformers for a more efficient power grid is something the private sector has lagged behind on so much that they will need federal aid to upgrade to the point we should be at instead of using 50 year old equipment (on the east coast grid). Levee's need to be taken care of as well. Even utilities as simple as water and garbage are horrifying in southern california (I live in the north and I'm sick of them taking our good water!) Infrastructure encompasses so much of what's been neglected thanks to the greed of the private sector. The last time our infrastructure was good was when it was in the hands of the federal government.


Arnold keeps cutting education, handicapped and elderly programs....the 3 groups that can't really fight back (most politicians do this). But he's also cut a lot of pork out and reduced much of the states spending about as far as I could see (also a few programs have ceased that gave a couple hundred million in profits....). And I know we're not the only state with a continually growing deficit. Time for papa government to hep it's children governments.

Schools in Texas sound better equipped than those in Cali -- I'll have to move out there if I decide to have kids. Because the kids my Uncle teaches in Compton don't even have enough books to go around the classroom, kids have to bring their own pencils and paper (this is middle school), science class is limited to once every two weeks, and the math they're doing is about 2 years behind the state's average (which is about 5 years behind europe's average). And he buys supplies for his own classroom out of his own pocket, because the families of these kids don't give two ****s or don't have money (or both). Yes that's a personal problem for that family, but without teachers providing these things, these kids would be getting an even worse education.

My other Uncle stopped teaching the year after he got his degree because the schools he taught at were so ill equipped. The only person in my family still teaching is a professor at Eastern Washington University (my family is made up of Teachers, Nurses, Doctors and IT), and that's out of 4 who began teaching. The other one just couldn't stand the little buggers attitudes, and wanted to work with the church more (great christian attitude :p).

The most inefficient federal program is the military :p. We should cut that. The amount of money being spent on this war is insane and could cover much of the people who don't have insurance today.

[kyleh]

90% of the infrastructure you are talking about is local or state. California has one of the highest state populations in the US, and is definitely one of the largest economies in the country as well. I'm not sure how California's problems should be federalized, maybe you guys should elect somebody who has better qualifications for your representation? Maybe you should work to change the opinions of your local voters and actually build a power plant or two so you don't have to keep buying power. Federal mandate is not going to fix your state problems. Only interstate highways are federal, and like I said, I don't remember any potholes on Cali's interstates.

We don't have rail because our country is too big. Passenger rail in this country has been a consistant failure since cars and highways, because it's not cost effective to cover enormous distances with trains. Other large countries don't have such systems, either, as far as I can tell. If they do, they are municipal and short.

I had to bring my own pencils and paper to school, I'm not sure how that effected my education, I guess I'd never really thought about it. I remember there was a pencil machine by the principal's office where you could get a cool NFL pencil for $.25. Maybe you should look into that as a solution for California? :D

Your last statement just boggles my mind. Like the war or not, the military is far from the least efficient federal program we have. I'm not saying they aren't wasteful, but it's far from the worst. We spend much more federal money per year on education.

Here are some funny charts, shows you how much real information people have about federal spending. Not that the information isn't readily available, just that nobody can decide how to interpret it.

http://photos14.flickr.com/19838818_1fbcf9ab5c.jpg

We spend it all on Social Security! Down with Social Security!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1329/541030653_79201c9029.jpg

No! We spend it all on Pentagon! (?) And a whole bunch on X! (?)

http://www.mrsdutoit.com/images/Pie2.jpg

I say we spend it all on non-defense discretionary!

[Alaric]

World hunger? WTF?

[Chip]

World hunger? WTF?

My point is instead of making a society that leaches off everyone else give them the useful skills to get them off welfare.

[AlphaMoose]

Schools in Texas sound better equipped than those in Cali -- I'll have to move out there if I decide to have kids. Because the kids my Uncle teaches in Compton don't even have enough books to go around the classroom, kids have to bring their own pencils and paper (this is middle school), science class is limited to once every two weeks, and the math they're doing is about 2 years behind the state's average (which is about 5 years behind europe's average). And he buys supplies for his own classroom out of his own pocket, because the families of these kids don't give two ****s or don't have money (or both). Yes that's a personal problem for that family, but without teachers providing these things, these kids would be getting an even worse education.
Comparing Texas' schools to those in Compton is pretty unfair towards California's high schools. The high school I attended here was very well maintained and had multiple programs for the students (Cisco networking, Medical Classes, decently advanced math classes), two books per student, almost as many computers as students, etc..

Not to say there isn't a education problem, but come on-- Compton? The inner city is no place for an education.

[Alaric]

My point is instead of making a society that leaches off everyone else give them the useful skills to get them off welfare.

What I'm getting at is why the hell should we dish money out to help someone in Assbackwardistan? We have plenty of our own people that we could spend money on if we were so inclined. How is "world hunger" a part of our budget?

And yes, I am 100% behind the idea of giving fishing lessons, vs. giving fish.

[anthonyX]

Comparing Texas' schools to those in Compton is pretty unfair towards California's high schools. The high school I attended here was very well maintained and had multiple programs for the students (Cisco networking, Medical Classes, decently advanced math classes), two books per student, almost as many computers as students, etc..

I agree with this. There is a lot wrong with educational system in California as a whole. Spending is obviously a problem (not money because we have plenty of money).The system is filled with mandates that make no sense and wastes money. The union is so damn political that in reality they could care less about the kids they are supposed to serve. With the influx of millions of illegal immigrants in to the education system the cost continues to rise Still there are some of the best schools available in the country. The schools I went to had some incredible opportunities for those willing to take advantage of them). Over all the education in California is a mess and if you think that the Federal government will solve the problem then you have no idea how California works. The lucky few make it through even in areas like Compton. The great part about California is the higher education. The availability to further ones education and for it to be affordable is what makes California shine.

[OmegaBob]

/rant on

Sorry to nitpick so please don't hold it against me...

it is: could NOT care less

I don't mean to be the grammar police (b/c I ain't perfect no sirree), but I am so very tired of folks on and offline saying 'could care less' when they mean the opposite. Co-workers find me annoying when I correct them and sometimes throw things at me -like staplers... OUCH!

Anyways... my apologies but I had to say it.

/rant off

[BlackBeard]

Comparing Texas' schools to those in Compton is pretty unfair towards California's high schools. The high school I attended here was very well maintained and had multiple programs for the students (Cisco networking, Medical Classes, decently advanced math classes), two books per student, almost as many computers as students, etc..

Not to say there isn't a education problem, but come on-- Compton? The inner city is no place for an education.

And there in lies the problems I speak of. We can't ignore a place just because it's bad. It exists and has problems.

The schools I grew up in after movign out of Oakland were much MUCH better, so I count myself lucky. But they still had to cut teh music and sports programs down and our math was still behind the curve the world sets. Books we had to share on occassion because class sizes were too big. No lockers as they were torn out because it was cheaper to do that and force kids to carry the books than it was to build enough for the class size I was in (we had 150 more students than the school had ever had, and the class behind me had 200 and the one behind them had more...).

[OmegaBob]

Catholic Schools FTW!

99% of the public schools (when I was a child) were crap. Many folks (Catholic or not) would send their kids to a Catholic school for a good education rather than dealing with the ones the city provides.

That being said, I blame Catholic schools for making the movie The Exorcist, extremely frightening to me! Grrr!

[kyleh]

And there in lies the problems I speak of. We can't ignore a place just because it's bad. It exists and has problems.

The schools I grew up in after movign out of Oakland were much MUCH better, so I count myself lucky. But they still had to cut teh music and sports programs down and our math was still behind the curve the world sets. Books we had to share on occassion because class sizes were too big. No lockers as they were torn out because it was cheaper to do that and force kids to carry the books than it was to build enough for the class size I was in (we had 150 more students than the school had ever had, and the class behind me had 200 and the one behind them had more...).

So what you do then is you get off your collective butts and you fix your state. This is exactly why the feds shouldn't be involved, because EVERY state doesn't have that problem, so EVERY state shouldn't have to pay for it. For God's sakes with the economy that California has (= bigger than most other nations) I don't see how you think money is going to fix things. You need better leadership that does the right thing with the money that you already have (which again is more than most nations). As I said in one of my earlier posts, the government IS the people, so physician heal thyself.

[AlphaMoose]

The great part about California is the higher education.
I completely forgot about this-- the UC system is nothing to scoff at.
And there in lies the problems I speak of. We can't ignore a place just because it's bad. It exists and has problems.

Villaraigosa has gotta take care of the gang problem there before he starts throwing money at the schools there.

[BlackBeard]

So what you do then is you get off your collective butts and you fix your state. This is exactly why the feds shouldn't be involved, because EVERY state doesn't have that problem, so EVERY state shouldn't have to pay for it. For God's sakes with the economy that California has (= bigger than most other nations) I don't see how you think money is going to fix things. You need better leadership that does the right thing with the money that you already have (which again is more than most nations). As I said in one of my earlier posts, the government IS the people, so physician heal thyself.

Except CA has been in debt for at least as long as I've been voting (10 years) and I recall problems before that during the Reagan administration (presidency, not governorship). Many people have passed through our leadership positions...I don't think different people are going to help.

We continue to go off topic in this thread...I forgot what it even was, and we just keep going back and forth with two very different ideas about how things should be done so I'm going to try to sum it up in one concise statement -- All I'm trying to say is, the way we're going now isn't working and hasn't been working for a long time. So why not try something that seems to work wonderfully in other nations? What's the harm in that? Saying each individual state should solve it's own problems in this Union of States we have is like saying nobody should help their neighbors to me.

Also, just a thought running through my mind; I don't know how Texas (WA and OR too) gets by with no State Tax. Maybe CA should adopt whatever sales taxes you guys have. I wish people would stop moving away from here when they retire...that'd probably provide a lot more tax money for the state...

[kyleh]

We being California, obviously. heh

Our sales tax is 8.25%, so I think that's the same as yours. We don't have the extreme real estate inflation that defines your state, so that probably eases the burden here. There are lost of places in Texas where you can buy an acre of land for a few hundred bucks, there's a lot of land here. :)

The original topic was a bunch of myths about Obama, but taxes are more fun to talk about than untruths. :)

Saying each individual state should solve it's own problems in this Union of States we have is like saying nobody should help their neighbors to me.

Actually, it's saying exactly what the foundation of the US is, and that is that different regions have different challenges that need to be dealt with at the local level. The state borders aren't just there so you can stop and take a picture of yourself next to the sign when you are on a long road trip. The borders are there because we are individually governed (or at least we were at one point) and we police ourselves (or at least we did at one point). As the fed gets bigger and bigger, we get closer and closer to that nightmare situation that I've described in other threads where the whole of the US exists simply to make life more comfortable in California. You have about 40 million neighbors right there in your state that could help each other, why would you think that annexing 300 million more are going to improve the situation that you have?

You also never answered the question that I posed early in the thread, which is that both my wife and I both (and most other peeps) have spent years making minimum wage as teens. What's the diff between us and anybody else? Why are others entitled to things we ourselves don't benefit from? Again, we give to charity, so it's not about being selfish, it's about having control over what I pay for and paying for things that are important to me rather than paying for things that are important to somebody I don't know. I would be more than happy to disburse the same money that I know pay in federal taxes to the charities of our choice. Maybe even more. :)

[NyteByte]

You guys do realize that most of your income tax is used to pay interest on the national debt, right? It doesn't get used for anything useful, such as charitable acts.

Only corporate taxes are used for the "real" things, like operating the government and military.

Believe it or not, personal income tax is voluntary. The government can't legally force you to pay it since there is no law that specifically states that. Unfortunately, we're all lemmings and continue to pay...

[kyleh]

I suppose you've stopped paying? :)

Looks like this dude (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) debunks that whole argument pretty readily, with lots of references to specific law.

[Chip]

Believe it or not, personal income tax is voluntary. The government can't legally force you to pay it since there is no law that specifically states that. Unfortunately, we're all lemmings and continue to pay...

There is a constitutional law 16th amendment (I think) and it has been upheld by the courts as Wesley Snipes has recently found out.

[BlackBeard]

You also never answered the question that I posed early in the thread, which is that both my wife and I both (and most other peeps) have spent years making minimum wage as teens. What's the diff between us and anybody else? Why are others entitled to things we ourselves don't benefit from? Again, we give to charity, so it's not about being selfish, it's about having control over what I pay for and paying for things that are important to me rather than paying for things that are important to somebody I don't know. I would be more than happy to disburse the same money that I know pay in federal taxes to the charities of our choice. Maybe even more. :)

People who go to college generally have parents who went to college too, or at least parents that have researched the system and know when to apply for what or who to go to for their kids to find out -- it's a huge step and seems impossible for many families that haven't been. And I've seen too many people satisfied with just a HS Diploma (and some that even talk about it like it's something worth talking about...I guess in a state where 67% of the people graduate HS maybe it IS something to flaunt though :-/ ).

Anyway I'm trying to say that yes, many people that are successful in life make the right choices. Some of those successful people owe their success to their parents, some don't. Some unsuccessful people get backed into a corner when they get overwhelmed and haven't been taught how to deal with something that seems so simple as a budget, or don't take credit seriously enough that their past catches up with them -- there are places to help with that though. But still many don't like to openly admit somethigns wrong until it's too late. Then, yes, sSome unsuccessful people are just lazy.

If we could come up with a way to have college be free to our new HS graduates that would be awesome (many countries do). But, Community College is an excellent place for new HS Graduates to go, and dirt cheap (and has many more ways to pay for it thanks to tax payers than UC's or CSU's have) but there's a stigma about CC's for some reason and people choose not to go. I still haven't figured the logic behind the stigma out - for some reason people think the CC's aren't worthy of going to for 2 years (probably the seam people that are lazy I guess)

But there are also those who just can't get a leg up in life, if you grow up in a ghetto it is definitely hard to get out (people who live in them generally don't have the tool at their disposal to know how to get out). Heck that goes for poor people too, just because a kid is born to a poor family shouldn't be held against them, but because of that they don't learn about how to manage money properly, or have their priorities in the wrong order. I'm sure you or your wife didn't grow up in the ghetto :p. I sort of did, and I know a lot of people that are still living in the same neighborhood, only a handful of my acquaintances from the area made it out and to college. Lucky for me my mom moved out of there to live with family for about a year and then moved us out on our own. But I have a feeling that if my dad had sex with a non-white and I were born to them two...I'd still be in that ghetto today instead of moving out when I was 10.

Why is someone entitled to more in life than you or I? Could be choices and determination, but it could also be the family they were born to and taught the right things at the right time. Parenting goes a long way, and parents position in life go a long way too. Would Chelsea Clinton have gone to Oxford if she were born to another family in the Ghetto of Little Rock Arkansas instead? I doubt it. But many people were born the same day as she in the same city I'm sure that didn't get the same choices in life. (just using Chelsea as an example since this thread makes political families run through my head). So, while yes, choices have a huge bearing on how successful you will become, the same choices are not available to everyone and the same lessons in life are definitely not taught to everyone in a timely fashion. I don't want to say it's luck, but there definitely seems to be a bit of that involved in life.

[kyleh]

Free college too? The handouts never end. :)

I never went to college, I do pretty well for myself. My wife went to college although she's the only one in her family that did including her parents. She made the choice to forego having a fun teenage social life and graduated both high school and college with honors. I had to work to help support my family from the time my dad died when I was 17, so I blew college off. We are the same age, she is college educated and I am not, and she makes about 5% more than I do. Not too shabby.

It's not easy for anybody, and I can't say that every day of my life has been a big win, but I've kept my eyes on the prize and my wife has too and it's worked out well for us.

As for your Chelsea example, she's riding the wave of choices that were made by her family before her. Each successive generation that makes good decisions can build until you are a young Kennedy, or they can just stay stagnant and want for nothing more than what they have. Either life can be a rewarding one, it just depends on what you are after.

I don't buy the ghetto excuse entirely though. To use a light-hearted example, look at Judge Joe Brown from TV. He grew up in South Central LA in a time that was much more hostile than what we have now to both poor folks and blacks, and he still managed to do quite well for himself. There are thousands of stories going back to pre-integration days of people who have risen out of crop shares and inner cities alike, and it was certainly much harder for those guys and gals than it would be for anybody today.

[AlphaMoose]

If we could come up with a way to have college be free to our new HS graduates that would be awesome (many countries do).

http://www.venturacollege.edu/departments/student_services/promise/index.shtml

No government help needed at all. I don't know how the foundation raises over $800k a year, but it gives over half a million to the school and over 300k in scholarships every year.

[anthonyX]

So what you do then is you get off your collective butts and you fix your state. This is exactly why the feds shouldn't be involved, because EVERY state doesn't have that problem, so EVERY state shouldn't have to pay for it. For God's sakes with the economy that California has (= bigger than most other nations) I don't see how you think money is going to fix things. You need better leadership that does the right thing with the money that you already have (which again is more than most nations). As I said in one of my earlier posts, the government IS the people, so physician heal thyself.

Hell yeah that is exactly the damn problem with this state. And if doesn't ****ing matter who is in charge (even though now for the last 20 plus years its the damn socialist democrats) they spend first and then tax next. The government will not make any real changes to fix the problem instead they put the blame on someone else. Right now it is the damn Indians fault and their casinos. But over the years they target everybody from smokers to car makers to any type of successful business while ignore the real problem. There is a reason why Orange County is one of the better places to live. They are basically their own damn people. What really ****es me off is every damn raise I get my State taxes goes up disproportionaly (I already know what to except from my federal taxes). Why the hell should I pay for the screw ups of years money mismanaging? That is why the huge influx of ILLEGAL immigrants ****es me off too. Who pays for their education, their health care, their housing and food? We do damn it! What they give back to society is no where close to what they take. That is just one of the "ignored" problems with California.

All I'm trying to say is, the way we're going now isn't working and hasn't been working for a long time. So why not try something that seems to work wonderfully in other nations?

Give it time! California is becoming a socalist state. We will mirror those countries you admire (while you ignore the underlying problems with those countries). I on the other hand will be fast gone... uh if I can talk my wife into moving.

[Evilpenguin]

We don't have rail because our country is too big. Passenger rail in this country has been a consistant failure since cars and highways, because it's not cost effective to cover enormous distances with trains. Other large countries don't have such systems, either, as far as I can tell. If they do, they are municipal and short.

actually, in May im planning to take a train from dallas to chicago and then to wisconsin to see a friend, and the round trip as a whole will just cost about $260, of course its going to take about 23 hours each trip, since the trains are so freakin slow, but its still a hell of a lot cheaper than a plane or driving there, plus its a lot more comfortable
and yeah, passenger trains are ailing now, but with the rapidly increasing price of driving and flying, i can see them becoming more popular

[kyleh]

http://www.venturacollege.edu/departments/student_services/promise/index.shtml

No government help needed at all. I don't know how the foundation raises over $800k a year, but it gives over half a million to the school and over 300k in scholarships every year.

They raise a lot of money because people are good. There's one of these or something like it in just about every major city. Of course, anybody who works hard enough in school can find themselves elligible for major scholarships, especially children of the poor and children of parents who have not been to college.

[BlackBeard]

A free first year of college...color me unimpressed. That's not enough for 9 out of 10 students I meet to even know wtf they want to do yet. Most people go undergrad for 5 years, some 6 and 7 (some even longer).

It's great that they do that though, but until now I'd never heard of that school (and they only do it for those in their county) but still it's great. Like I said though Community College is a wonderful start for anybody and really...everyone should go to CC first. Same educational goal (even using the same material as the SUs), smaller classes, and a whole lot cheaper.

Word of motuh and advertising for programs like that isn't done enough; of couse for those actively seeking the information I'm sure they'd come across it...hopefully. My sister is preparing to go to school now, changed the school twice, and has already changed her major twice...still not finished with HS. I know she'll change again before she finishes her 4 years (every body in my direct and extended family that had the good fortune of affording college did).

[BlackBeard]

Hell yeah that is exactly the damn problem with this state. And if doesn't ****ing matter who is in charge (even though now for the last 20 plus years its the damn socialist democrats) they spend first and then tax next. The government will not make any real changes to fix the problem instead they put the blame on someone else. Right now it is the damn Indians fault and their casinos. But over the years they target everybody from smokers to car makers to any type of successful business while ignore the real problem. There is a reason why Orange County is one of the better places to live. They are basically their own damn people. What really ****es me off is every damn raise I get my State taxes goes up disproportionaly (I already know what to except from my federal taxes). Why the hell should I pay for the screw ups of years money mismanaging? That is why the huge influx of ILLEGAL immigrants ****es me off too. Who pays for their education, their health care, their housing and food? We do damn it! What they give back to society is no where close to what they take. That is just one of the "ignored" problems with California.



Give it time! California is becoming a socalist state. We will mirror those countries you admire (while you ignore the underlying problems with those countries). I on the other hand will be fast gone... uh if I can talk my wife into moving.

Illegal Immigrants need to be taxed -- and they'd be paying them if it wasn't for the slow *** federal government with the green cards. I like the initiative NY began to try to take with legal licenses for illegal immigrants. CA needs to do something similar with ID/Licenses and some sort of california only social security numbers.

I also don't like how they don't have to pay for the things you mentioned but gain the benefits of them. Try to go into an ER and get healthcare as a citizen and they'll turn you away, but illegal immigrant? Sure np, the tax payers can pay for it. It deserves a Big WTF?

What are the underlying problems in....Germany for example...or Sweden? or England? Problems that aren't here as well.

[kyleh]

They have thier own problems. One of my swedish buddies got to watch his mom die of an 80% curable cancer due to 1-2 year waiting lists for some types of specialist care over there. He can rant and rave for hours about how much he hates socialized medicine.

[anthonyX]

What are the underlying problems in....Germany for example...or Sweden? or England? Problems that aren't here as well.

I can't speak for everyone obviously but I have some great friends that live in France, Germany, and England. My friends in France lived out here for 4 years and were my co workers. The major problem is that the economy has created a cap of sorts. He is well educated and extremely smart yet the job he had and now has in France pays a fraction of what he made out here. They (the government) has created a faux middle class. The taxes are incredibly high and so is the cost of living. You are not paid what you are worth in most cases. You can survive, like most do, but if you are ambitious it is extremely hard to rise to the top. Skilled labour is always a problem because of what you go through to obtain the education and experience is not worth the pay off in most cases. That is why they often go abroad after they are educated. I guess it is the food that keeps them coming back. They have the poor like everyone does. The majority of people are civil servants. There is no real job security and over all the labor is depressing. At least it is for me but I guess if you never experinced anything different then you don't realize what you are missing. Don't get me wrong I love visiting France and will again soon but I would never want to live there or work there unless I had enough money (which means I couldn't work there lol).

Germany is a different place all together. If you like the government in every aspect of your life then that is the place for you. My friend has no problem with the way things operate there. Over all their standard of living is much better then other European countries. This is from my own observation as I spent 7 months there. The education system is very good as is life after school. I have no idea how the current economy is but when I was there it seemed like the cost of living was lower and the pay scale was higher then other places. My friend who is an engineer is paid very well (comparable to what I get paid). Again my only problem with them is the interference with the government in everyday life. The beer is good and they now how to have a party! I need to check up with my mate and see how life is going as I haven't talked to him in over a year.

[BlackBeard]

Only 6% of middle class in America make it to the top. Saw that on CNN today (Lou Dobbs War on the Middle Class). So France and here are the same in the regard that 94% of the people here in the middle class can't make it up regardless of ambition). The middle class here was actually created after WW2 too, also like the french gov't. A lot of the crap people hate about france they should hate about this nation too...been that way for a long long time so far as I know. I do know that their food is either really good or really bad though :p. Job security I can't comment on personally, but people seem to enjoy their jobs there. But yes taxes are high, and they have high unemployment (so maybe it's not a great example to use in defense of taxing high, since the lazy there get by without work). I love their care for employees though.

The only problem I have with germany is their censoring of entertainment, other than that everything you said is definitley spot on (great education, great foresight in education too for the kids...at 15 they go to a job fair that people in this nation might go to at 18; and at that place they give them a choice, continue school...or start learning in a hands on trainign vocational program. Excellent for those that don't want to become teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc...).

They have thier own problems. One of my swedish buddies got to watch his mom die of an 80% curable cancer due to 1-2 year waiting lists for some types of specialist care over there. He can rant and rave for hours about how much he hates socialized medicine.

Yeah...we don't have problems like that here at all /sarcasm.

I've got a great aunt whose been waiting for a kidney for over 3 years now still getting dialysis. My 2nd cousin died at the age of 5 just last year because they couldn't get a heart for her (born with a hole in her heart -- her father was a surgeon, and is now a medical director, so it wasn't a question of money). My uncle almost died from liver cancer due to a couple of lazy doctors (thankfully he pursued it...but he had to pay for it out of pocket and is still arbitrating his case to the HMO to this day..that was 2.5 years ago he got the operation in Mayo). It had such an impact on the family my cousin (his son) has become a severe hypochondriac and continually worries about every little nagging problem with him.

And people I don't know die from curable diseases and cancers daily thanks to our HMO "care". Heck, Larry King had a special tonight about John Ritter, he died due to misdiagnosis and mistreatment for an easily fixable heart valve rip.

[kyleh]

Only 6% of middle class in America make it to the top. Saw that on CNN today (Lou Dobbs War on the Middle Class).

I'm sure you have to expect my critical thinking self to ask you to define "middle class" and "the top" in this context, right? You know there will always be a bottom, middle, and top, right? In about bell curve proportions? No tax can change that, unless we just move away from money entirely and start driving the economy with love or moxy or something.

Yeah...we don't have problems like that here at all /sarcasm.

There's a bit of a diff between waiting for somebody to have a compatible organ and having a skin cancer growth diagnosed and removed, no? I'm no surgeon.

Misdiagnosis is a result of your HMO? I've never been diagnosed by my HMO. I usually go see doctors, who can make mistakes no matter how much you are paying them.

[BlackBeard]

I didn't say misdiagnosis was a result of the HMO, I said the HMO didn't pay for his surgery because two doctors had diagnosed him with cramps and some other BS. Doctor's that were within his HMO plan, the ones the HMO suggest he go to. He went to a non HMO doctor at Mayo thanks to some urging from his church. And if you were talking about John, same story, his doctors that are within the HMO umbrella misdiagnosed him. That's what he gets for trusting his doctors in his HMO plan I guess...

And i was pointing out problems like that one in Sweden, sorry that I don't know anybody that died from things that aren't easy to find (they were easy to fix though had they the right tools)....I did mention John Ritter though. All they had to do was treat him properly for the aortic dissection...but they treated him for heart attack. Complete opposite thing you should do for an aortic dissection.

And I'm certain if I look I can find stories of people dying from skin cancer here in this country that could have been removed if treated soon enough. My point was that we have problems just like that here, as does any country with healthcare (socialized or private).

Middle class is anybody making an average income of 40-57k/year in that report. Making it to the "top" is 97k+/year.

[kyleh]

I would not say that lack of organ compatability has anything to do with dying from a treatable disease like skin cancer.

Doctors misdiagnose sometimes, it's what happens. That is not the fault of the HMO. Frankly, I'm not sure what your tax system is going to do about HMOs anyway other than provide them to more people. Subsidizing healthcare is not necessarily going to give you any better choices and doesn't really have anything to do with that at all.

[anthonyX]

Only 6% of middle class in America make it to the top. Saw that on CNN today (Lou Dobbs War on the Middle Class). So France and here are the same in the regard that 94% of the people here in the middle class can't make it up regardless of ambition). The middle class here was actually created after WW2 too, also like the french gov't. A lot of the crap people hate about france they should hate about this nation too...been that way for a long long time so far as I know. I do know that their food is either really good or really bad though :p. Job security I can't comment on personally, but people seem to enjoy their jobs there. But yes taxes are high, and they have high unemployment (so maybe it's not a great example to use in defense of taxing high, since the lazy there get by without work). I love their care for employees though.


Comparing the french "middle class" to ours is like comparing super nintendo graphics to the PS3. There is no comparison. That is one of the "trade offs" is how they threat their employees. In theory it looks nice but from what I have heard from those that work there it is rarely practiced. The 35 hour work week I guess is okay. I do like their holidays that they have but my job I actually have more. (The difference is I earned mine they get it because they work). The biggest differences is anyone in America (I know their are many exceptions) can make it. The opportunities are there and if one has determination you can better your situation. It is much much harder in France to better ones self.

[kyleh]

I like to research stuff, so I wanted to see if there was any indication that John Ritter had succumbed to his medical problems while under the care of an HMO, as implied above. It turns out that I could find no evidence of that, but I did find this:

The family of "Three's Company" actor John Ritter, who died from a torn aorta in 2003, is bringing a $67 million suit against two doctors who treated him as having had a heart attack instead. Their attorney, Moses Lebovits, says he can prove it.

The family has already collected roughly $14 million in settlements involving eight more medical workers and the hospital. Although it's claimed his doctor didn't tell him of an enlarged aorta two years prior, their case focuses on not taking X-rays.

1 man's life = potentially $81 million dollars in malpractice suits. Apparently, the aortic dissection that he had is very very rare, and can easily be masked by symptoms that look like a massive heart attack. X-rays and CT scans can find the valve problem, but those aren't part of heart attack care and take time that a person who is having a massive heart attack might not have. Tough call.

You can bet that the medical system is going to pass that savings on back to you, HMO or not. That cost is going to be wrapped in dollar for dollar for every doctor's visit, prescription, hospital stay, or ambulance trip.

HMOs are the reason medical care is out of reach of some people? I doubt that very much.

[Chip]

Instead of looking at HMO's as being the sole reason medical care is out of reach for some people why not look at illegal immigrants in how much they cost the medical communitee. The same for law enforcement, education and other public services.

[anthonyX]

Instead of looking at HMO's as being the sole reason medical care is out of reach for some people why not look at illegal immigrants in how much they cost the medical communitee. The same for law enforcement, education and other public services.

Because that wouldn't be the compassionate way to look at things. It is easier to blame a corporation or big money. John Ritter's death is sad but to get that much money out of a very difficult situation is crazy. I have no doubt he will probably win just because everyone loved John. I highly doubt if a non celebrity died the same way they would win the lawsuit.

[kyleh]

Actually people win those lawsuits all the time, that's the reason for the state of medicine today. HMOs are cheaper than PPOs because it gives the insurance companies the ability to allow only doctors that have impeccable records when it comes to malpractice (among other reasons), which means fewer medical complications, which is less money that the insurance companies have to pay out.

[BlackBeard]

Because that wouldn't be the compassionate way to look at things. It is easier to blame a corporation or big money. John Ritter's death is sad but to get that much money out of a very difficult situation is crazy. I have no doubt he will probably win just because everyone loved John. I highly doubt if a non celebrity died the same way they would win the lawsuit.

They (Amy Yasbeck, Wife of John Ritter, and John's two oldest kids from previous wife) lost the lawsuit last month actually - research better :p (or read what I say better). The doctor's belong to Blue Cross, Blue Shield, and

And I don't understand why you (and Kyleh) are arguing about HMO's at all -- when did I blame the HMO's for his death? I blamed the doctor's poor treatment and was just citing an example of bad things that happen in this country too; in rebuttal to the easily treatable problem of the friend's mother who died in Sweden. I already said that actually...don't really get why HMO's are still being argued against in this regard. Now in regard to my Uncle, who had to pay out of pocket, yup all the HMO's fault (see how that works...money = hmo's, care = doctor's themselves) -- but he was still able to afford the care thanks to family, friends and his good credit. Still arbitrating...

HMO's aren't the sole reason this countries health care is out of reach of some. Their greed in treating people properly hurts many though not in my Uncle's situation financially, but socialized medicine guarantees everyone gets seen without the fear of cost blocking it. Regardless of the root behind the monetary problem (be it immigrants, lack of specialized doctors, or greed), it really doesn't matter; countries with socialized medicine don't have problems like my Uncle. It gets done, he had to fly half way across the country to the Mayo clinic to get it done because teh HMO doctors were lazy, or trying to keep their place in the structure of the HMO by not saying the man had cancer.

The HMO themselves were responsible for not paying for his care because he went to an out of network doctor (but was referred to this doctor as a last ditch effort, even though the two oncologists he met in his HMO said he didn't. They found it in Mayo).

By the by, HMO's don't generally pay (only if they run the hospital directly, like Kaiser Hospitals for example) for the treatment of illegal immigrants in a hospital, the county or state does. So they really have no bearing on price paid at all (fee to HMO, or fee for treatment, since the hospital gets paid either way -- by the tax payers of the nation).

[kyleh]

I did mention John Ritter though. All they had to do was treat him properly for the aortic dissection...but they treated him for heart attack.

That's what I was addressing. If a doctor makes a mistake, they make a mistake. It's easy to second guess and say "All they had to do...", but hindsight is 20/20. You mention Ritter's case as if it's endemic of a problem with our system, when I can't imagine that doctors in socialist nations don't make mistakes as well. I guess I'm saying that I don't understand that line of reasoning at all.

And I don't understand why you (and Kyleh) are arguing about HMO's at all -- when did I blame the HMO's for his death? I blamed the doctor's poor treatment and was just citing an example of bad things that happen in this country too; in rebuttal to the easily treatable problem of the friend's mother who died in Sweden. I already said that actually...don't really get why HMO's are still being argued against in this regard. Now in regard to my Uncle, who had to pay out of pocket, yup all the HMO's fault (see how that works...money = hmo's, care = doctor's themselves) -- but he was still able to afford the care thanks to family, friends and his good credit. Still arbitrating...

I'm not arguing against HMOs, they are as good as anything else. I am mainly just arguing that socialist medicine is not some magic pill that's going to increase the overall quality of healthcare, or even necessarily provide healthcare of any quality to the poor that they can't already get through the current government and private benefits system.

[Wingnut]

You guys are all tools for debating this.

This link (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bull****_is_most_important) shows you what the election is all about.

Watch the video. Know the truth.

[BlackBeard]

f*****' Onion, lol

I forget to read that news (or watch it) too often. Sad thing is it's not that far off of a Satire :( :p

[kyleh]

24 hour talking heads, you get what somebody pays for. :)