Obama/McCain..... Socialists?

[verothacamaro]

You need to learn how the Federal Reserve works. They don't deal with tax dollars. In fact, they are 100% seperate from the Federal Government. The ONLY relation they actually have to the government is that the Chairman and board members are appointed and confirmed by the government. Other than that they are completely autonomous of each other.

Yeah.....Fed Reserve is technically a Private Corporation, that the Government has a controlling interest in.

[owequitit]

You can go back to chasing unicorns in your posts owequitit. I get problems solved.

Yeah, so do I, which is why your post of stupid has been deleted.

If you make it another personal flame fest, you won't be back until well after the election...

[verothacamaro]

Yeah, so do I, which is why your post of stupid has been deleted.

If you make it another personal flame fest, you won't be back until well after the election...

I like, I like................

So from exploring your view points these past few days, I'm sure you hate to be stuck with a political labels.............

Registered Independent?

Still undecided this year?

[owequitit]

LOL! Fake Thug actually asked me the same thing yesterday...

Not quite like you pegged it eh?

Yes, and yes. I am currently leaning toward Obama though, and have been for awhile now. He has a lot of issues IMO, but then again so does McCain. I REALLY hate the lesser of two evils crap. The thing that made this country great in the first place is that usually above all else, leaders chose what was best. They often disagreed at length, and they often went back and forth as there is no straight line in politics, but we always seemed to end up feet down.

Now all they do is fling poo at each other and place blame. I suspect it is partly because they are all too narrow minded and partly because they have no real solutions and they know it, so they just throw rhetoric around.

I wish I could vote "none of the above" like in Brewster's Millions.

[MadSpleen85]

Subprime mortgages were being given before Democrats took office.

In fact, in 2002, President Bush, along with Republican controlled Congress, pushed the America's Home Ownership Challenge.
You're placing a whole lot of blame on one side, but failing to place blame all sides, when clearly there is PLENTY of fault to spread around.

I did not say that the Democrats are the only ones to blame... Did I? In 2006 the majority of Democrats were running on the "change" platform. True "change" would have been putting an end to the sub prime lending instead of simply ignoring it until it blew up like it has. Like Scott already said "There is plenty of fault to go around."

Also, if you read the details on that, isn't it odd that the completely rich favoring Bush pushes through legislation that helps poor people that otherwise don't have the ability to buy a house?

^^Interesting tid-bit^^

The American Dream.

[alifeva]

Yeah, so do I, which is why your post of stupid has been deleted.

First of all, my post was in retort to you. So you brought this on yourself, remember that.

Secondly, if you honestly believe that the federal reserve bank (aka The Government, aka The Man) RIGHT NOW is not and has not been using tax payers money to bail out companies like bear stearns, then I don't know what to say. Where did you think they got the 236billion from? House Loans, Car Loans, Mortgages. This is the CRISIS that everyone is talking about. Ben Bernanke had no right to use our money to bail out his buddies on wall street. We are paying for this (down the line). He is trying to make up for it now by printing dollars, meanwhile inflation rises and dollar falls. Why am I typing all this? Read a newspaper.

If you make it another personal flame fest, you won't be back until well after the election...

Real mature Tom Cruise. But I'm no Val Kilmer.

[owequitit]

First of all, my post was in retort to you. So you brought this on yourself, remember that.

Secondly, if you honestly believe that the federal reserve bank (aka The Government, aka The Man) RIGHT NOW is not and has not been using tax payers money to bail out companies like bear stearns, then I don't know what to say. Where did you think they got the 236billion from? House Loans, Car Loans, Mortgages. This is the CRISIS that everyone is talking about. Ben Bernanke had no right to use our money to bail out his buddies on wall street. We are paying for this (down the line). He is trying to make up for it now by printing dollars, meanwhile inflation rises and dollar falls. Why am I typing all this? Read a newspaper.




Real mature Tom Cruise. But I'm no Val Kilmer.

I corrected a typo that you made and nobody knew whether you meant the Fed or the government. YOU are the one getting your panties in a bunch, not me.

We were having a civil conversation, but as usual you can't handle that.

You attacked again. See you sometime in late November.

P.S. The bailout money came from the Federal Government which is seperate from the Federal Reserve. The money issued by Congress for the bailout is being handled by the Treasury Department, which is distinctly a part of the Federal Government, NOT the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has also pumped billions into the system, but their money DOES NOT come from taxpayers. Two completely different entities. Two completely different systems. Two completely different money supplies. Two completely different management structures. They do work together though, so they MUST be the same right? You can't even get the NAMES right, and when someone points out something about the Fed, you get all asshurt because you look like a retard or something.

Now, back to the civil conversation.

[alifeva]

You attacked again. See you sometime in late November.

I attacked, now whos delusional. Make it late December.

[owequitit]

I attacked, now whos delusional. Make it late December.

I'll do you one better...

[Fake Thug]

No one side is to blame, and no one side will fix the mess. Whoever takes over for Bush will very likely be seen as a TERRIBLE president, because we're not going to be out of this mess in 4 years. Financial holes are much harder to climb out of than they are to dig!


We can't have total economic freedom. We can't have a totally free market. The government NEEDS some involvement. If they didn't have involvement, we'd have 4 brands running the country: Microsoft, Wal Mart, Pfizer, and McDonalds. If such a small group of businesses gained that much power, the government itself would be in serious danger as well. The US government is a corporate entity... not all that unlike major corporations in the business world.

We will never have a total separation of government and business in this country.

I somewhat agree. The main Role of gorvernment as far as the free market goes should be to make sure that the competition is plenty.The gorvernment should be a consumer advocate instead of suppressor. The consumer wins when companies compete.

Gorvernment operation by nature is chaos. It is a slow sometimes backwards moving machine. I would not compare it to a corperation. The operating principles might resemble democratic gorvernment. However the goal of any corparation is very simple. To make money. Shareholders approve of the board and CEO as voters do congress and the president.

The goal of gorvernment from what I can see is to extort...I mean collect taxes, defend the united states or itself, take care of the less productive citizens, regulate business, engage in business, install democracy footholds around the world(lol@ this one), fight poverty and famine, respond to natural disasters, stop human trafficking, build infastructure, recongnize and notarize functions/institutions/countries and so on.

Socialism encourages entitlement by nature. It takes away drive imo. Productive citizens shoulder the burden. There is less incentive to wanna be the best, to excel. The concept of working to the top or moving up the ladder is contradictory with the ideas of socalism. They sky is the limit does not apply here. To truly move up the ladder means no caps in salary, to truly move up the ladder means inequality. Socialism's ultimare goal of a egalitarian society is 100% contradictory with economic inequlity.

[verothacamaro]

LOL! Fake Thug actually asked me the same thing yesterday...

Not quite like you pegged it eh?

Yes, and yes. I am currently leaning toward Obama though, and have been for awhile now. He has a lot of issues IMO, but then again so does McCain. I REALLY hate the lesser of two evils crap. The thing that made this country great in the first place is that usually above all else, leaders chose what was best. They often disagreed at length, and they often went back and forth as there is no straight line in politics, but we always seemed to end up feet down.

Now all they do is fling poo at each other and place blame. I suspect it is partly because they are all too narrow minded and partly because they have no real solutions and they know it, so they just throw rhetoric around.

I wish I could vote "none of the above" like in Brewster's Millions.

I know how you feel....

[verothacamaro]

We know how it went two years ago when congress went from a Republican majority to the Democrat side, and we have seen where things have gone since.

Yes, you did place blame on one side, and you constantly do so, if not directly, then absolutely insisting.

Don't forget that legistlators didn't regulate one very important ingredient that heavily fueld the crisis: Credit Reporting.

Companies that marked a subprime lender a Triple-A investment, when clearly they weren't even close.

Little things we overlook and people who think the government is the solution to our problems (e.i. people who think legislators should've done more).

[owequitit]

I somewhat agree. The main Role of gorvernment as far as the free market goes should be to make sure that the competition is plenty.The gorvernment should be a consumer advocate instead of suppressor. The consumer wins when companies compete.

Gorvernment operation by nature is chaos. It is a slow sometimes backwards moving machine. I would not compare it to a corperation. The operating principles might resemble democratic gorvernment. However the goal of any corparation is very simple. To make money. Shareholders approve of the board and CEO as voters do congress and the president.

The goal of gorvernment from what I can see is to extort...I mean collect taxes, defend the united states or itself, take care of the less productive citizens, regulate business, engage in business, install democracy footholds around the world(lol@ this one), fight poverty and famine, respond to natural disasters, stop human trafficking, build infastructure, recongnize and notarize functions/institutions/countries and so on.

Socialism encourages entitlement by nature. It takes away drive imo. Productive citizens shoulder the burden. There is less incentive to wanna be the best, to excel. The concept of working to the top or moving up the ladder is contradictory with the ideas of socalism. They sky is the limit does not apply here. To truly move up the ladder means no caps in salary, to truly move up the ladder means inequality. Socialism's ultimare goal of a egalitarian society is 100% contradictory with economic inequlity.

This is a very succinct way to sum it up.

In our government "By the people, and for the people" the government should be there to ensure that people can get up and go to work safely (defense, not offense) and make sure that there is plenty of opportunity available for people to pursue happiness, so to some extent that includes civil equality. However, it does not include taking one group's success away from them because they made a different set of choices and giving it to someone else because they made a bad set of choices. That is entitlement, and it is going to DESTROY our competitiveness. It has already started. Our economic position and freedom are NOT guaranteed from day to day, which is something I don't think most Americans realize. Hopefully, with the gentle replay of the Depression, they are starting to realize that.

One reason I stand in the middle. I do also believe that sometimes shit happens and people need another opportunity to succeed. This kind of support I am all for. Handing people life on a silver platter is not good, and in fact it can me mathematically proven to perpetuate the issue of dependence,which is NOT freedom.

At some point, we have let the special interest groups take away our compass, because we are up in all kinds of stuff that we just shouldn't be. Some of it is inevitable (in a global economy and consumer we are going to have financial interests around the globe, and we do have to work to protect those) but some of the other stuff I just don't know about.

A good example with Obama, and this is one of the issues I had with Clinton. They bill themselves as the candidates (overall, it is a party movement) that are against "war" and yet they both either did or will involve us in more military based engagement than their Republican forebears. Clinton did, and Obama has very much said he will, because he believes it is OUR duty to get involved in world affairs such as famine, genocide, etc. The problem with this is that just like Bosnia, Somolia etc we have to put our military behind borders and against a government that doesn't want us there. Sounds like Iraq and Afghanistan to me. And yet, in immediately the next sentence, speech etc, they asail Republicans for perpetuating conflict. But oh, we are going to help the poor starving people, by being there long enough to feel that we have done something good, and then we will pull out, and pretend it is all OK as the warlords, etc. resume normal activity. Since it is a peace loving Democrat in the office, then it is OK to engage our military against another countries wishes. Somolia is right back to where it was before we went in the first time. Clearly our strategy there was effective... Our military needs to STAY home unless it is something that directly affects the security of our country, like Afghanistan. Of course, now with "security" being a very fluid term and with no concrete enemy, we are going to have to adapt our war machine, because full scale invasion just doesn't work as well anymore.

No simple solutions, but none of the current leaders are even willing to talk about the problem.

[mj213]

Damn Scott. How do you manage to find time to work, or anything else?

Of all the people with thousands of posts, you probably have the most content per post. I bet you have serious carpal tunnel syndrome.. hehe

On a serious note, there's a documentary I watched about Canada's socialist medical program. It's amazing, their taxes offset the cost of medical coverage so everything is free. FREE. Medicine? Set price no matter what it is, and how many pills/injections/etc. If you have to PAY to get to the hospital? They REIMBURSE YOU FOR YOUR EXPENSES!!!

It's great. Personally? I'm sick of having collections calling me for medical bills I can't pay. I went to the emergency room because I was passing out at work and had a fever. They told me to get some rest and go home. The next week, I received a bill for $397! They gave me NOTHING except a 3 hour wait in the ER lobby (it was about 7pm when I went in). At the time I was pulling in about 350 a week (with a family).

[owequitit]

Damn Scott. How do you manage to find time to work, or anything else?

Of all the people with thousands of posts, you probably have the most content per post. I bet you have serious carpal tunnel syndrome.. hehe

On a serious note, there's a documentary I watched about Canada's socialist medical program. It's amazing, their taxes offset the cost of medical coverage so everything is free. FREE. Medicine? Set price no matter what it is, and how many pills/injections/etc. If you have to PAY to get to the hospital? They REIMBURSE YOU FOR YOUR EXPENSES!!!

It's great. Personally? I'm sick of having collections calling me for medical bills I can't pay. I went to the emergency room because I was passing out at work and had a fever. They told me to get some rest and go home. The next week, I received a bill for $397! They gave me NOTHING except a 3 hour wait in the ER lobby (it was about 7pm when I went in). At the time I was pulling in about 350 a week (with a family).

I have time for lots of stuff, and it helps that I type fast. I also organize my thoughts quickly.

The "documentary" (I suspect you might be referring to something from Michael Moore) is probably not 100% accurate. Well, if it IS from Michael Moore, then I KNOW it isn't 100% accurate. I have relatives that are Canadian and have unfortunately made frequent use of the health care system in major ways. In fact, I lost 2 very young cousins, who had MAJOR issues. I am not talking broken bones.

Have you been to the ER lately? Wait time is much reduced. Fewer illegals placing increased demand on the facilities.

1) Nothing is free. Move to Canada and pay their tax levels, and you will understand this logic. Everyone says "oh, its free." Wrong. It is free on the front end, you get screwed on the back end. Imagine over half of your money going straight to taxes... Cigarrettes there were $5 a pack when were still paying less than $2. All because of taxes. Then they stick you at the paycheck, and in the store, and on transportation, and everywhere else they can.

2) Not everything is covered free of charge. Most Canadians still have insurance to help cover all of the stuff that isn't covered. Odd isn't it, that in a system where everything is "covered;" it isn't? There is also too much demand on the system, and not enough money to keep up. Where do you go from there? This money that everyone wants to use on healthcare does NOT grow on trees. You all like to bitch about Republican deficit spending (there never was a Democratic surplus), but the fact is that nationalizing healthcare will just make it go higher. We already spend over $400 billion a year on Medicare, our third largest federal budget (behind SS and DOD). Medicade is an additional $200 billion. If you add Medicare/Medicade together, it is #2. In 2009, Medicare is forecast to be well OVER $400 Billion. That is with our current minimal government coverage, primarily for old people and invalids. Cover everything, and it is anyone's guess. $1-2 Trillion annually perhaps? Of course, your other option is to reduce coverage, service, and quality, which I am sure would be better. I can pull the budget numbers for you if you would care to see them. In fact, here they are, 2008-2009.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...budget/hhs.pdf

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...budget/hhs.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008 (more neatly summarized, and easier to read)

Quick facts:

* Medicare/Medicade/Social Security account for 68% of our mandatory 2008 payouts.

* Medicare/Medicade account for 20.5% of our total required expenditures.

* This is merely maintaining the status quo. The problem is that ALL of these budgets are expected to approximately double in the next 20 years, because the baby boomers are getting old, and guess what? Old people need medicine. Who pays for it? Those that work. There are roughly 7-8 boomers for every one of us. It is not unconceivable that our tax liabilites would increase into the 60% range just to keep everything the way it is now. Oh, but you don't want poor people to pay anything, and the rich people won't be as rich anymore because you have already taxed them to death, so who bears the brunt of this? The middle class...

3) Their level of service is not as good as ours. For procedures here that might need to be scheduled out a week or two, you could be looking at months plus there. In some cases up to two years for something that would be immediate here. Hope it isn't life threatening...

There is also a lot of "discussion" on whether or not the level of service is as good because up there, doctors get paid a flat fee for a particular service. Use a routine checkup for instance. They get a certain dollar amount. An ingeninuitive doctor will quickly figure out how to maximize this system. Get more patients through. What happens to the quality of care, if the #1 priority is quantity?

I am not going to go so far as to say the doctors aren't as good, but I know first hand that when my 2 year old cousin was taken to the family doctor, they didn't do much, and told my aunt it was probably just a "cold." 1 day later, my aunt decided to take her to the Children's Hospital, and by the time they got her there, they found out that she had suffered 3 strokes due to a brain hemorrhage. Could have happened here, sure, but every primary care physician, family doctor etc, I have dealt with would have looked into it more as her symptoms were NOT just cold like, and her brother had died of the same thing years earlier, with nearly identical symptoms. The Doctor KNEW this, and yet he did no further investigation. Here in the States, he probably would have had his license sued away for not checking into it further given the evidence. Which coincidentally, is another component of the US healthcare system that would alleviate a great % of the problem.

4) Now for an example here. My mother just racked up $500,000 in medical care over the last two weeks. There was one test that needed to be performed, because the doctors weren't sure what they were looking at. So, they made arrangements to Airevac her to Phoenix, so that they could perform the test, as our local hospital didn't have the equipment and Good Sam did. My parents have a big evil HMO. You know, the kind that is villified on every TV syndicate in the world? It is even Healthnet, the worst of the worse, and it is in AZ, the most lenient state in the Union for allowing big companies to rape and plunder the innocent. Guess what? One phone call was made and the flight was covered 100%. The rest of the healthcare was also covered nearly 100%. Total cost to my parents? $2,000. That is it. The other $400 someodd+ thousand dollars? Free and clear. The ONLY difference between that and Canada is who paid the bill. Of course, since she was non-emergent, who knows how long she would have had to wait up there. Since millions of these operations are performed every year, I bet there is some kind of waiting list.

Oh, and the beauty of OUR payment system? If my parents make 3 $5 a month payments, and the hospital accepts them? That is now a legal and binding contract, and the hospital can neither make them pay more, nor charge them interest. Even if it gets passed off to collections so that the hospital gets it off of their books (non-punitive to my parents' credit as they didn't default), it still holds. Even if it takes them 11,000 years to pay it off. I have been all around our healthcare system. It isn't as bad as everyone wants to pretend it is, you simply have to know how to use the system. Guess what? It is no different in Canada.