Obama's First 100 Days- Your Report Card [Archive]

MacNut

Apr 29, 2009, 01:56 PM

Well, you could look it up and let us know. ;)Eh, that sounds like too much work.:p

President Obama will get the ritual grade for his first 100 days in office on April 29. His first days will be compared to FDR's first 100 days. And to a lesser extent JFK's first 100 days. But comparing him to these two presidents is not a fair comparison. FDR faced the worst economic crisis in American history. JFK faced no immediate foreign or domestic crisis. President Obama falls somewhere in between the two.

The better comparison is with his predecessor President Bush. He is the president whose towering White House failures helped pave the way for Obama's win. And there's some eerie similarities in the way Bush handled his first 100 days and the way Obama is handling his.

Bush got the same intense look in his first 100 days as President Obama will get in his; and for good reason. Bush's win was deeply tainted but also historic. Millions thought then and now that he bagged the White House through fraud, deceit, manipulation, and a huge helping hand from a politically compliant High Court. Obama's win was historic and tinged with racial and ideological fears.

Though the Bush legacy is truly dreadful, it wasn't that way at the start. He got the same first 100 days pass from voters that Obama and every other president has gotten. His April 2001 poll numbers topped sixty percent. This matches Obama's April numbers. A Washington Post/ABC Poll even gave Bush high marks on his handling of the economy.

Bush did what every other new president did during his first hundred days. He used the early public goodwill to make politically favorable appointments, ink executive orders and shove through Congress programs that likely would draw fire later on, clamp a vise like grip on executive power, and cast an eye on cementing his historic legacy. Obama has done the same.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/eerie-similarities-betwee_b_190620.html

jmadlena

Apr 29, 2009, 02:00 PM

Exactly- at least the guy is trying. I think he'll be fine. Nothing could be worse than Bush though.

I dunno, $1.6 trillion of semi-poorly planned expenditures seems pretty bad to me. Especially with only 12 cents of every dollar (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html) actually going to stimulus... I believe President Obama is slipping in things that normally wouldn't pass, but because it is labeled stimulus it gets through.

His first 100 days haven't been as bad as I was expecting, though.

mactastic

Apr 29, 2009, 02:08 PM

Right now he is running about middle of the road for me, but I don't like where he is trying to go while we are still suffering in an economic crisis. Cap & trade is going to be the worst thing since the Iraq war started. I believe Al Gore linked the environmental movement to the civil rights movement in importance which is a little :confused:.

In some ways cap & trade might force an energy revolution because of the high tax its going to weigh on everyone, but its going to be a bitch for at least 10-15 years.
This makes me think you don't know much about cap and trade beyond the typical right wing spin. Carbon intensive industries will indeed cost more, but industries that aren't carbon intensive will cost less as they profit by selling their carbon allowances to the more carbon intensive industries.

mactastic

Apr 29, 2009, 02:12 PM

His first 100 days haven't been as bad as I was expecting, though.
Were you expecting the Hammer and Sickle to be flying above the WH by now? :confused:

Desertrat

Apr 29, 2009, 02:57 PM

As an anti-statist, I don't like the extension of governmental powers over business and industry. So, low grade there. I really don't believe his monetary policy will work. All we'll get out of it is an extension in length of this world-wide depression and a high rate of inflation. So, low grade there. And the incredible amount of national debt will stifle our economic base, long-term. That's more low grade.

I know of no changes in the medical care system which will reduce federal expenditures--at a time when Medicare and Medicaid costs are growing. We have the expanding unfunded mandate of Social Security as well. In this case, however, past and present Congresses are more to blame than Obama, but he's climbing on that same bandwagon. So, low grade there.

Options within the plans for GM and Chrysler include ownership positions for the UAW. I fail to see how that will enhance profitability for either company. If I'm correct as to the lack of profitability, who will then later bear the burden of the failure? Once again, the taxpayer? Quite possibly, another low grade.

'Rat

iPhoneNYC

Apr 29, 2009, 03:02 PM

I think he's doing great. He tried to play with the GOP but they just want to stop everything. So now he's moving on his own. I give him high marks across the board.

MacNut

Apr 29, 2009, 03:04 PM

I think he's doing great. He tried to play with the GOP but they just want to stop everything. So now he's moving on his own. I give him high marks across the board.Isn't that what every president does. The Dems were just as bad in blocking Bush. Party politics will never stop.

Sky Blue

Apr 29, 2009, 03:19 PM

Still hasn't come forward with his birth certificate. C-

leekohler

Apr 29, 2009, 03:22 PM

Isn't that what every president does. The Dems were just as bad in blocking Bush. Party politics will never stop.

Bush never even tried to reach across the aisle, MacNut. Don't try to say he did. He demonized anyone who disagreed with him and accused them of sympathizing with terrorists.

mactastic

Apr 29, 2009, 03:33 PM

Still hasn't come forward with his birth certificate. C-
LOL!

Oh wait, you're serious...

LMFAO!:D:p:rolleyes:

remmy

Apr 29, 2009, 04:27 PM

As an anti-statist, I don't like the extension of governmental powers over business and industry. So, low grade there.

But isn't that a part of why there is a economical mess, there was a loss of control over business?

rdowns

Apr 29, 2009, 04:36 PM

But isn't that a part of why there is a economical mess, there was a loss of control over business?

They'll tell you the problem was people getting mortgages and loans they couldn't afford. We all know that if the financial markets were better regulated, and the banks and mortgage companies didn't have a way of dumping these bad loans, they would never have been made to begin with.

rhett7660

Apr 29, 2009, 06:48 PM

LOL!

Oh wait, you're serious...

LMFAO!:D:p:rolleyes:

Why is that funny?

rdowns

Apr 29, 2009, 06:50 PM

Why is that funny?

LOL!

Oh wait, you're serious...

LMFAO! :D:p:rolleyes:

Desertrat

Apr 29, 2009, 08:17 PM

remmy, no, it began in 1977 with government requiring bad business practice on the part of home-loan lenders. The bad practices were then exacerbated by congressional actions later on which led to pyramiding of leverage beyond all rational thought. The Fed contributed by its too-low interest rates. The usual deal of easy money and loose credit led to the usual result. It was in no way unexpected. The two questions were of when, and in what particular manner--but the crash was inevitable.

What's happening now is merely a macro-version of what's happened on a lesser scale many times around the world. A society whose economic activity is based primarily on hedonism and easy money is like a drunk on a Saturday night spree: There's always a Sunday morning, and sometimes the coming down is a real bitch.

I'm not as pessimistic as http://www.kunstler.com about the future, but the man does make some good points from his observations of events. However, we appear to be legislating ourselves toward the darker side of his prognostications.

Shivetya

Apr 30, 2009, 06:40 AM

iPhoneNYC

Apr 30, 2009, 08:01 AM

leekohler

Apr 30, 2009, 08:47 AM

The thing about Obama is that he is more liberal the basic US voter. However, when he says things - like about the flu to "wash our hands and cover your mouth when you cough" he sounds like your conservative grandma. So he can run with his agenda

Excuse me? What a ridiculous statement. Obama is NOT more liberal than the "basic US voter". If he were, he wouldn't be in office. Those tea parties you saw were NOT the "basic US voter". And if they are, this country is in a huge amount of trouble.

Eanair

Apr 30, 2009, 09:21 AM

F

F for insane debt levels he will impose on us and future generations

F for bailing out Wall Street and telling Main Street to take a hike. Go compare their actions with GM/Chrysler versus Wall Street. He is propping up hedge funds to pay off the campaign donations he received. The single largest transfer of public wealth to private hands EVER.

F
F
F
F

What are the other five Fs for?

EDIT:

The thing about Obama is that he is more liberal the basic US voter. However, when he says things - like about the flu to "wash our hands and cover your mouth when you cough" he sounds like your conservative grandma. So he can run with his agenda

Sorry, what? How does advising people to wash their hands and cover their mouths during a pandemic make him sound like a conservative grandma? It's valid advice that doctors tell patients all the time during disease outbreaks, and really does need to be reiterated for those who are a bit lax in their hygiene habits, or those who are sick so they can understand how to not spread the virus. I'm a bit lost here.

Desertrat

Apr 30, 2009, 10:54 AM

leekohler, I believe you err as to the issue of "more liberal". Remember, many people stayed home who are not liberal, merely from distaste for McCain. Obama's charisma brought out far more of the liberal voters--along with revolt agains Bush's NeoCons--and many conservatives didn't vote.

Something that intrigues me: Through the years, many on this website have decried the increasing accumulation of wealth by the upper strata, and the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Yet, these bailouts are a transfer of tax dollars to the wealthiest among us. Obama's monetary policy is accelerating the disparity, but very few seem to realize it.

For over a decade, some 44% of all corporate profits have been in the arena of investment banking. The managerial employees and "bosses" are among the highest-paid people anywhere. More money has been paid out as employee bonuses than was earned as gross profit by Exxon. And now they are being supported with your tax dollars.

But, hey, Obama's doing good for us, isn't he?

'Rat

leekohler

Apr 30, 2009, 11:16 AM

leekohler, I believe you err as to the issue of "more liberal". Remember, many people stayed home who are not liberal, merely from distaste for McCain. Obama's charisma brought out far more of the liberal voters--along with revolt agains Bush's NeoCons--and many conservatives didn't vote.

Like I said- prove that Obama is far to the left of the "basic voter". Just prove it, 'rat- all I'm asking.

The economy isn't my only measure of Obama though. I'm no fan of bailouts as I've stated a million times on this board. I don't know how many more times I have to say it before it sticks.

My other measures are Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan and health care. And it's too early to tell how any of those are going yet, but I like what I've seen so far on the first three.

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 11:44 AM

This makes me think you don't know much about cap and trade beyond the typical right wing spin. Carbon intensive industries will indeed cost more, but industries that aren't carbon intensive will cost less as they profit by selling their carbon allowances to the more carbon intensive industries.

The government will be digging into both sides. If there is a net gain and not a net tax on the people I will hand you a medal on a golden platter.

Excuse me? What a ridiculous statement. Obama is NOT more liberal than the "basic US voter". If he were, he wouldn't be in office. Those tea parties you saw were NOT the "basic US voter". And if they are, this country is in a huge amount of trouble.

Really? It couldn't be that the republicans just got off of a terrible 8 years. It really surprised me they ran fairly close in the polls up till the end even though they should have had their polling numbers submerged below the sewage.

freeny

Apr 30, 2009, 01:29 PM

Really? It couldn't be that the republicans just got off of a terrible 8 years. It really surprised me they ran fairly close in the polls up till the end even though they should have had their polling numbers submerged below the sewage.

An August 2008 estimate is that 51% of registered voters, including independents, lean toward the Democratic Party and 38% lean toward the Republican Party.

If he is far left of the "average voter" that would put him left of almost the entire country, assuming Democrats are labled "Left"

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=295

Digital Skunk

Apr 30, 2009, 02:13 PM

Something that intrigues me: Through the years, many on this website have decried the increasing accumulation of wealth by the upper strata, and the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Yet, these bailouts are a transfer of tax dollars to the wealthiest among us. Obama's monetary policy is accelerating the disparity, but very few seem to realize it.

For over a decade, some 44% of all corporate profits have been in the arena of investment banking. The managerial employees and "bosses" are among the highest-paid people anywhere. More money has been paid out as employee bonuses than was earned as gross profit by Exxon. And now they are being supported with your tax dollars.

But, hey, Obama's doing good for us, isn't he?

'Rat

I agree, and it stinks, but the fact is, that letting the bottom fall out of the major corporations holding the economy together won't save the nations wealth. Obama is shoving money at these rich @$$holes because he knows that letting them drown will be end of a good chunk of the nations wealth and where we get our money from to do our small businesses.

Imagine how many jobs would be lost if GM and Chrysler went belly up? Or if the the few manufacturing companies left in the nation looked like the journalism industry which is bleeding skilled workers?

I am no hot head political person, but that helped to stomach the amount of money Obama was giving to inept rich d0cheb@gs that pretty much got paid millions to run companies into the ground.

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 08:02 PM

An August 2008 estimate is that 51% of registered voters, including independents, lean toward the Democratic Party and 38% lean toward the Republican Party.

If he is far left of the "average voter" that would put him left of almost the entire country, assuming Democrats are labled "Left"

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=295

I can be conservative and watch the republicans **** up so bad that it makes me want to vote for anyone else besides them, what part of that is so hard to understand?

REPUBLICANS SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAD A CHANCE! If they did its because America isn't inherently left leaning. I voted Ron Paul in the primaries and then went libertarian in the general election. I never thought Republicans would have a chance, I was surprised Mccain even came close in the polls.

MyDesktopBroke

Apr 30, 2009, 08:13 PM

these bailouts are a transfer of tax dollars to the wealthiest among us. Obama's monetary policy is accelerating the disparity, but very few seem to realize it.

While I agree the money going to the banks is gratuitous, the big 3 (make that 2 & 1/2 now) are huge employers of US workers, so saving them, in my opinion, is a better allocation of money - as long as there is proper oversight to insure the money is spent in the way that it is meant to be spent.

NT1440

Apr 30, 2009, 08:14 PM

REPUBLICANS SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAD A CHANCE!

Why? Believe it or not, most americans can figure out that a candidate is not the same person who is in office......

EricNau

Apr 30, 2009, 08:14 PM

I for incomplete.

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 08:17 PM

Why? Believe it or not, most americans can figure out that a candidate is not the same person who is in office......

I think you give most Americans too much credit.

NT1440

Apr 30, 2009, 08:18 PM

I think you give most Americans too much credit.

Is it nice up there on your pedestal?

iJohnHenry

Apr 30, 2009, 08:21 PM

I think you give most Americans too much credit.

Is it nice up there on your pedestal?

Sorry, but I agree with that sentiment .... usually.

Most politicos put on their "elect me" face during the election process.

I have yet to see anything specific to indicate that Barack is falling into the "controlled" variations to the pre-election script.

Am I wrong??

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 08:24 PM

Is it nice up there on your pedestal?

When people being interviewed at polling booths can correctly choose which party is majority in congress I will come off my pedestal.

mactastic

Apr 30, 2009, 08:27 PM

I can be conservative and watch the republicans **** up so bad that it makes me want to vote for anyone else besides them, what part of that is so hard to understand?

REPUBLICANS SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAD A CHANCE! If they did its because America isn't inherently left leaning. I voted Ron Paul in the primaries and then went libertarian in the general election. I never thought Republicans would have a chance, I was surprised Mccain even came close in the polls.
Democrats should never have had a chance with Al Gore either. If they did, it was because America isn't inherently right leaning, right? Thus, America is perfectly balanced in the exact center of the political spectrum. :rolleyes:

NT1440

Apr 30, 2009, 08:30 PM

When people being interviewed at polling booths can correctly choose which party is majority in congress I will come off my pedestal.

And you think they cant because?

mactastic

Apr 30, 2009, 08:33 PM

When people being interviewed at polling booths can correctly choose which party is majority in congress I will come off my pedestal.
Link please.

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 08:33 PM

Democrats should never have had a chance with Al Gore either. If they did, it was because America isn't inherently right leaning, right? Thus, America is perfectly balanced in the exact center of the political spectrum. :rolleyes:

What are you talking about? Gore was VP under a moderately successful president (disregarding him getting blowjobs which really had little to do with anything). He lost to Bush after the same moderately successful presidency.

Bush wrecks the house for 4 years, gets elected again and takes a sledge hammer to it. Republicans still hold up a fight. :confused:

NT1440

Apr 30, 2009, 08:35 PM

What are you talking about? Gore was VP under a moderately successful president (disregarding him getting blowjobs which really had little to do with anything). He lost to Bush after the same moderately successful presidency.

Bush wrecks the house for 4 years, gets elected again and takes a sledge hammer to it. Republicans still hold up a fight. :confused:

You understand that Bush and the GOP are not one in the same right? They distanced themselves as much as they could from him during the election.

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 08:35 PM

And you think they cant because?

Ive seen them fail, interviews on youtube. I guarantee if I would have stood outside an Obama rally during election season a majority would have thought Republicans were running the whole show at the time.

NT1440

Apr 30, 2009, 08:36 PM

Ive seen them fail, interviews on youtube. I guarantee if I would have stood outside an Obama rally during election season a majority would have thought Republicans were running the whole show at the time.

Ah , so its not based on anything worthy of being called evidence, just your thoughts. That clears it up.

Youtube? Really? :rolleyes:

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 08:36 PM

You understand that Bush and the GOP are not one in the same right? They distanced themselves as much as they could from him during the election.

Its not that hard of a concept, the reason they were distancing themselves is because they knew they had to overcome his tarnishing of the Republican party name. It didn't work.

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 08:38 PM

Ah , so its not based on anything worthy of being called evidence, just your thoughts. That clears it up.

Youtube? Really? :rolleyes:

Youtube makes what I saw invalid even though it was recorded, k. :confused:

mactastic

Apr 30, 2009, 08:38 PM

What are you talking about? Gore was VP under a moderately successful president (disregarding him getting blowjobs which really had little to do with anything). He lost to Bush after the same moderately successful presidency.

Bush wrecks the house for 4 years, gets elected again and takes a sledge hammer to it. Republicans still hold up a fight. :confused:
Please. Clinton was so toxic in 2000 that Gore couldn't even be seen in public with him on the campaign trail, much like the situation McCain was in with Bush.

rhsgolfer33

Apr 30, 2009, 08:41 PM

Excuse me? What a ridiculous statement. Obama is NOT more liberal than the "basic US voter". If he were, he wouldn't be in office. Those tea parties you saw were NOT the "basic US voter". And if they are, this country is in a huge amount of trouble.

Then does that mean that Bush was not to the right of the basic US voter? Getting elected depends on which way a bunch of independents and moderates swing, not on how much to the right or left you are.

Overall I'd give Obama a C. I don't think he's done any better or any worse than the majority of previous presidents. I don't agree with much of what he's done, but I feel he's doing what he thinks is right, and I suppose that is all you can really ask.

Zombie Acorn

Apr 30, 2009, 08:42 PM

Please. Clinton was so toxic in 2000 that Gore couldn't even be seen in public with him on the campaign trail, much like the situation McCain was in with Bush.

Regardless it was after a successful presidency vs. an unsuccessful one. I almost guarantee a Republican reemergence within 4 years.

NT1440

Apr 30, 2009, 08:45 PM

Youtube makes what I saw invalid even though it was recorded, k. :confused:

Youtube tells me that at most it was a few hundred people. If your going to say the american people are too stupid to know whos in charge, your gonna have to use something that isnt anecdotal evidence.

mactastic

Apr 30, 2009, 08:45 PM

Youtube makes what I saw invalid even though it was recorded, k. :confused:
Ah... so you saw one or two people on YouTube who were unable to identify the party in power, and you extrapolated with no further evidence to the vast majority of people.

I assume that means there will be no link forthcoming with proof of any kind that substantial numbers of people can't identify the party in power, as you claim?

rhsgolfer33

Apr 30, 2009, 08:46 PM

Regardless it was after a successful presidency vs. an unsuccessful one. I almost guarantee a Republican reemergence within 4 years.

Even as someone registered Republican I don't agree with that. It will take at least 8 more years (and thats probably optimistic); Provide there are no colossal screw ups, I guarantee a Obama re-election in 2012 and I doubt there will be any regain of seats in the house or senate. The republican party has no candidates, there either old or too religious and alienate a broad base of moderate voters.

Until the party realizes that well thought out non-religious based moderacy and fiscal conservatism is the way to attract voters they will continue to loose and I'll continue to vote libertarian in the presidential election. Not that my presidential vote matters since I live in California anyways.

CalBoy

Apr 30, 2009, 08:59 PM

My report card for Obama's 100 days:

Economy: A
Pretty good overall given the circumstances.

International Affairs: A-
Again, very good, especially at reestablishing American prestige. However, he showed how much of a novice he is at the G8 summit when he got nothing that he sought.

Iraq: B+
Renaming a conflict is not the same as ending it. His timeline is ok, but doesn't seem to radically different from what others had been throwing around prior to the election.

Afghanistan: B+
He's taking it more seriously than Bush, but I'm apprehensive about what could happen with Pakistan in the future.

Due process/Habeas Corpus/Civil Liberties: C+

Closing Gitmo was a great start, but many prisoners are merely being moved back into Iraq or Afghanistan. In addition, the Obama Justice Department was pushing a few weeks ago to grant immunity to government agents who engaged in warrantless wiretapping. That isn't acceptable.

Torture: A
Releasing the memos and saying torture would no longer occur was really the best we could hope for. There isn't a lot to gain by investigating further, so I think Obama made the right call here.

Social Services: A-
Off to a good start with the budget that just passed the Senate. It allows the Senate to use reconciliation rules for healthcare, which would make a filibuster impossible (not that a filibuster is as grave of a threat now, but it never hurts to have that contingency plan). Overall, Obama is playing the healthcare reform game much smarter than Clinton, which is promising at the very least.

Environment: A-
It's in the budget, and he's made it quite clear where he wants to go with EPA regulations; now the only thing is to see how far he takes it. He deserves high marks for taking it this far in his first 100 days.

LGTB Rights: C-
He gets some marks for trying to start the process of ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but seeing as how it's been nearly 60 days since he made that announcement, he doesn't get much credit, because he has complete command of the armed forces and doesn't need any legislative approval to end the policy.

Desertrat

Apr 30, 2009, 10:21 PM

leekohler, there's a problem with "proof". More liberal than the mainstream taxpayer is easy. But as shown in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104689179070747.html however, some 40% of adults don't pay any or much in the way of taxes. They may or may not be liberal, but they'll vote for whoever offers the most largesse.

That the UAW is being given--given, not having bought--positions of ownership in the car companies is straight out of Karl Marx. I submit that's a tad more "liberal" than the mainstream voter would like.

For MyDesktopBroke and Digital Skunk: Sure, big companies going broke means a lot of job loss. The problem is that a lot of deficit spending is going in to "saving" companies which are in no way guaranteed any profitability in the future. Likely, given the terms of these bailouts, they're doomed anyway. The reasons for the lack of profitability still exist. This deal merely defers job losses past the next election. That way, those running for re-election can holler, "See? We saved your jobs!"

Normal capitalistic marketplace behavior for those who fail is that they have their assets take by the debtholders and sold at market value to different operators. What's being done now screws the debtholders and maintains failed operations for the short run--and all on taxpayer dollars; deficit dollars at that. Those who have played by the rules are being screwed and those who have not are being rewarded. And you, your children and your grand-children are on the hook for it all--even if you don't work for GM or Fiat/Chrysler.

Overall, the question nobody asks is, "After these bailouts fail, what then?"

'Rat

mactastic

Apr 30, 2009, 10:52 PM

But as shown in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104689179070747.html however, some 40% of adults don't pay any or much in the way of taxes.
I'm sure it must be news to the CEO of WalMart that fully 40% of the people going through their stores aren't paying any or much in the way of taxes on their purchases...

They may or may not be liberal, but they'll vote for whoever offers the most largesse.
How is that any different from the largess the GOP offers to the rich? The rich obviously vote for whoever offers them the most largess as well.

SLC Flyfishing

May 1, 2009, 11:21 AM

People said an African American man would be POTUS when pigs fly. Well sure enough, roughly 100 days into Obama's presidency: swine flu.

SLC

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 11:29 AM

People said an African American man would be POTUS when pigs fly. Well sure enough, roughly 100 days into Obama's presidency, swine flu.

SLC

Oh, oh! Ugh! God that was horrible! :D

BTW- I've called the MR Pun Police. :)

SLC Flyfishing

May 1, 2009, 11:51 AM

Oh, oh! Ugh! God that was horrible! :D

BTW- I've called the MR Pun Police. :)

What? Come on, I was pretty proud of that one ;)

SLC

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 12:04 PM

What? Come on, I was pretty proud of that one ;)

SLC

Oh god no! Now you're gonna have skunk and IJ Reilly in here punning forever! There is a pun virus you know. :D

Zombie Acorn

May 1, 2009, 12:04 PM

Ah... so you saw one or two people on YouTube who were unable to identify the party in power, and you extrapolated with no further evidence to the vast majority of people.

I assume that means there will be no link forthcoming with proof of any kind that substantial numbers of people can't identify the party in power, as you claim?

That was my only visual proof, I talk to people every day. I don't have to prove anything to you, I know the truth and I think you do also.

Zombie Acorn

May 1, 2009, 12:06 PM

Even as someone registered Republican I don't agree with that. It will take at least 8 more years (and thats probably optimistic); Provide there are no colossal screw ups, I guarantee a Obama re-election in 2012 and I doubt there will be any regain of seats in the house or senate. The republican party has no candidates, there either old or too religious and alienate a broad base of moderate voters.

Until the party realizes that well thought out non-religious based moderacy and fiscal conservatism is the way to attract voters they will continue to loose and I'll continue to vote libertarian in the presidential election. Not that my presidential vote matters since I live in California anyways.

Cap & trade and a push towards universal health care is all it is going to take. Obama doesn't seem content with waiting until the recession is out before implementing these changes.

I agree with you on your second paragraph though, Republicans put too emphasis on religion, I am not religious at all.

edit: whoops forgot to multi quote again.

SLC Flyfishing

May 1, 2009, 12:06 PM

Oh god no! Now you're gonna have skunk and IJ Reilly in here punning forever! There is a pun virus you know. :D

Well you just made it that much easier with the virus comment lol. :D

SLC

mactastic

May 1, 2009, 12:12 PM

That was my only visual proof, I talk to people every day. I don't have to prove anything to you, I know the truth and I think you do also.
Stellar debate tactics...

I also talk to people every day, and I don't know anyone who doesn't know who's in power. Thus, everyone knows who's in power, right?

There's a reason anecdotal evidence is frowned upon here. It's just faith-based arguing, and it's beneath most of us.

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 12:19 PM

Zombie Acorn

May 1, 2009, 12:31 PM

Stellar debate tactics...

I also talk to people every day, and I don't know anyone who doesn't know who's in power. Thus, everyone knows who's in power, right?

There's a reason anecdotal evidence is frowned upon here. It's just faith-based arguing, and it's beneath most of us.

Its not a question of who is in power, it was a question of who held majority in congress while a president of the opposite party is in power.

I may not be able to prove my exact point, but there are more than enough statistics going around for me to not have much faith in the average American's knowledge of the workings of the world. For instance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

"Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century."

mactastic

May 1, 2009, 12:35 PM

Its not a question of who is in power, it was a question of who held majority in congress while a president of the opposite party is in power.

I may not be able to prove my exact point, but there are more than enough statistics going around for me to not have much faith in the average American's knowledge of the workings of the world. For instance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

"Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century."
LOL... I may not be able to prove that conservatives are stupid pig-dogs, but I can prove something else, so the proposition that conservatives are stupid pig-dogs must then be true! :p

Ah well... at least you cited *something* this time around. You're getting warmer...

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 12:38 PM

I'm sure it must be news to the CEO of WalMart that fully 40% of the people going through their stores aren't paying any or much in the way of taxes on their purchases...

How is that any different from the largess the GOP offers to the rich? The rich obviously vote for whoever offers them the most largess as well.

Ah- beat me to it. And I still don't see how any of 'rat's post proves the Obama is to the left of the "basic voter". To the left of 'rat, yes. To the left of some economists, maybe. But in general, Obama's pretty much sitting in the middle.

rhsgolfer33

May 1, 2009, 12:38 PM

Cap & trade and a push towards universal health care is all it is going to take. Obama doesn't seem content with waiting until the recession is out before implementing these changes.

Honestly, I think many moderate Republicans favor universal healthcare. Democrats may think the party is all rich folks, but there are a lot of working class people in the party that have a hard time paying for health care or getting health care. I don't think that, in and of itself, will be enough to turn a large amount of moderates and moderate Republicans that voted for Obama away from him. Additionally, I don't think many people understand what Cap & Trade is, and I don't expect most of them to find out, so I doubt they'll be turned off by it, especially with the huge emergence of a green movement. If they market it well enough they'll have no problem getting tons of Americans, even Republicans, to buy in.

I think the biggest turnoff will be the continuation of these wars. Of course, we'll see how much the press wants to skewer Obama over especially Afghanistan in the years to come.

Zombie Acorn

May 1, 2009, 12:40 PM

LOL... I may not be able to prove that conservatives are stupid pig-dogs, but I can prove something else, so the proposition that conservatives are stupid pig-dogs must then be true! :p

Ah well... at least you cited *something* this time around. You're getting warmer...

My only intent was to prove that Americans are generally "out of the loop". I will admit that I can't prove my original point with solid information, so you win. :D

Honestly, I think many moderate Republicans favor universal healthcare. Democrats may think the party is all rich folks, but there are a lot of working class people in the party that have a hard time paying for health care or getting health care. I don't think that, in and of itself, will be enough to turn a large amount of moderates and moderate Republicans that voted for Obama away from him. Additionally, I don't think many people understand what Cap & Trade is, and I don't expect most of them to find out, so I doubt they'll be turned off by it, especially with the huge emergence of a green movement. If they market it well enough they'll have no problem getting tons of Americans, even Republicans, to buy in.

I think the biggest turnoff will be the continuation of these wars. Of course, we'll see how much the press wants to skewer Obama over especially Afghanistan in the years to come.

I actually saw a commercial yesterday (not sure what channel) of an interview with a Canadian citizen asking about their health care, lets just say it didn't show a very pretty picture. I expect the Republicans will continue running ads similar as the time grows nearer.

I also expect many ads explaining cap & trade and how it will effect the average American from the GOP.

I do agree with you on the war though, time to stop playing world police and start building up our defenses.

Ugg

May 1, 2009, 12:59 PM

I actually saw a commercial yesterday (not sure what channel) of an interview with a Canadian citizen asking about their health care, lets just say it didn't show a very pretty picture. I expect the Republicans will continue running ads similar as the time grows nearer.

I also expect many ads explaining cap & trade and how it will effect the average American from the GOP.

Scare tactics from one anecdotal Canadian actor aren't going to get very far when people have no insurance at all.

I think the American public is intelligent enough to realize that it's time we do something about climate change.

Germany has a feed in tariff for wind and solar. It's made electricity roughly 10% more expensive. It's also created a massive market for solar and wind products and created tens of thousands of domestic jobs. Also, it's drastically reduced the amount of oil and gas they import.

Bush said it himself, we're a nation addicted to oil, cap and trade is only the first of many steps we'll have to take to rid ourselves of that addiction.

By supporting bushco, fiscal conservatives have lost all credence.

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 01:15 PM

Zombie Acorn

May 1, 2009, 01:24 PM

When people don't have health care at all, they aren't going to care about silly ads.

You do realize that our health care system will be the next thing to collapse if we don't do something about it, right? Our current system is unsustainable.

I am self employed and do not have health care. What makes you think that a government backed system would be sustainable? I would rather have a good portion of the US getting the best treatment possible than EVERYONE getting the bare minimum and not much more.

If I wanted health care I would go get a job that offered it, its not that tough. Even $10 a hour jobs around here offer health care.

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 01:28 PM

I am self employed and do not have health care. What makes you think that a government backed system would be sustainable?

The rest of the civilized world makes me think that.

If I wanted health care I would go get a job that offered it, its not that tough. Even $10 a hour jobs around here offer health care.

Wow- if it's that easy, then why do we have millions of people without it?

mactastic

May 1, 2009, 01:47 PM

I am self employed and do not have health care. What makes you think that a government backed system would be sustainable? I would rather have a good portion of the US getting the best treatment possible than EVERYONE getting the bare minimum and not much more.

If I wanted health care I would go get a job that offered it, its not that tough. Even $10 a hour jobs around here offer health care.
You are obviously young and in good health, likely with no family to support.

rhsgolfer33

May 1, 2009, 02:39 PM

When people don't have health care at all, they aren't going to care about silly ads.

You do realize that our health care system will be the next thing to collapse if we don't do something about it, right? Our current system is unsustainable.

Lee is right, it doesn't matter what your party affiliation is, if you don't have healthcare or have to pay an extraordinary amount for it, an ad isn't going to sway your opinion.

Contrary to what Lee thinks though, I doubt our system will "collapse" if nothing is done about it. If by collapse he's implying that it will continue to reach fewer and fewer people then I guess I agree that will happen, but that's not my definition of collapse.

I don't much care whether a system is instituted or not as long as it doesn't have an extreme affect on my tax burden. I have good healthcare and I will continue to have good healthcare. Regardless of whether the government institutes as system or not I will continue to pay for a separate policy so that I can continue to see the best doctors. Additionally, I would prefer a system that wasn't entirely funded through taxes and instead relied on families paying $2000 a year or some similar amount. I don't think healthcare is a fundamental right and I worry about what else the government will start providing as a right if it delves into this area.

Like Zombie, I've been offered healthcare at every job I've ever had, including the non-union ones paying $6.75 an hour.

bobr1952

May 1, 2009, 02:45 PM

SLC Flyfishing

May 1, 2009, 03:30 PM

Ironic that one of the best examples of socialized medicine provided by the US government is the program provided to retired military service members like me. And BTW, it works fine for me thank you very much--really the only way I could have actually retired after I left the military. :)

Disclaimer: this is an example of who I know and what I've seen, and as such has little to no meaning outside what I'm going to say, but here's what I've noticed about the VA medical system.

Nearly everyone I've conversed with (through my jobs in health care, volunteering in other health care settings, and through friends and family), hates the VA system. They all claim that it's difficult to get the care they seek often times, that there is an immense approval system that has to be gone through before they can get even some basic things done. Most have subsequently either purchased private insurance as a means of gaining access to basic care without hassles, or have taken jobs where there are health care benefits offered.

I also do a fair bit of health care volunteer work with the homeless population, and trying to help them get some of their care through the VA system (many of them are veterans) is nearly impossible. Getting them on medicaid, then sending them through a private health care institution is much easier (and even that is no easy task).

So while you may feel that the VA system suits you just fine, it's not the case for everyone. In fact, wasn't there a story recently about the possibility of returning veterans having to pay for their own injuries?

I've had health care benefits associated with my job ever since I started working full time after high-school. It admittedly seems like I have had better than average coverage with all of my jobs, but I've been nothing but completely happy with my situation. I never had difficulty getting approval for anything I or my wife or kids needed. And I had very low premiums, and often times no co-pays. In fact, I don't think I had to pay anything when my first child was born outside of the $25 copay for my wife's first monthly OB visit, and my wife had a lot of complications with that pregnancy, and a subsequent C-section delivery. The second birth (with a different insurance plan from a different job) cost me $800 all together, if I remember correctly. I guess I've just been lucky in that regard?

SLC

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 03:43 PM

Disclaimer: this is an example of who I know and what I've seen, and as such has little to no meaning outside what I'm going to say, but here's what I've noticed about the VA medical system.

Nearly everyone I've conversed with (through my jobs in health care, volunteering in other health care settings, and through friends and family), hates the VA system. They all claim that it's difficult to get the care they seek often times, that there is an immense approval system that has to be gone through before they can get even some basic things done. Most have subsequently either purchased private insurance as a means of gaining access to basic care without hassles, or have taken jobs where there are health care benefits offered.

I also do a fair bit of health care volunteer work with the homeless population, and trying to help them get some of their care through the VA system (many of them are veterans) is nearly impossible. Getting them on medicaid, then sending them through a private health care institution is much easier (and even that is no easy task).

So while you may feel that the VA system suits you just fine, it's not the case for everyone. In fact, wasn't there a story recently about the possibility of returning veterans having to pay for their own injuries?

I've had health care benefits associated with my job ever since I started working full time after high-school. It admittedly seems like I have had better than average coverage with all of my jobs, but I've been nothing but completely happy with my situation. I never had difficulty getting approval for anything I or my wife or kids needed. And I had very low premiums, and often times no co-pays. In fact, I don't think I had to pay anything when my first child was born outside of the $25 copay for my wife's first monthly OB visit, and my wife had a lot of complications with that pregnancy, and a subsequent C-section delivery. The second birth (with a different insurance plan from a different job) cost me $800 all together, if I remember correctly. I guess I've just been lucky in that regard?

SLC

Yep- I'd say you've been DAMN lucky! I've paid a lot of copays and had my insurance company deny a claim for one of my physical therapy sessions. There was no deductible, they simply refused to pay it. It was unbelievable. Also had two root canals/crowns that cost me well over $2,000 out of pocket even with insurance.

Desertrat

May 1, 2009, 04:34 PM

Shifting emphasis: One aspect of the cost of health insurance premiums is the amount of coverage by a policy.

If there were coverage only for major health problems and serious accidents, and not coverage for minor things like sniffles and stubbed toes, premiums would cost less. Further, there oughta be separate policy levels for those needing pregnancy coverage and those not so in need.

I can see where reforms are needed for the definition of "malpractice", as well. Somehow, we've got to get away from the deep-pockets syndrome in suing. A return to negligence as the primary issue of at-fault would help.

Something needs to be done about the amount of clerical work and record-keeping as well. I was appalled at the amount of red tape and dead trees when I went through my six months of cancer doings. It wasn't the folks who worked in the system; it was the whole damned system.

These issues hold whether the tab is handled through BC/BS or El Fed.

'Rat

Digital Skunk

May 1, 2009, 05:21 PM

People said an African American man would be POTUS when pigs fly. Well sure enough, roughly 100 days into Obama's presidency: swine flu.

SLC

LOL

But seriously, I think he's doing a great job putting the economy back on track, but as others have said he's left a few small things slip through the cracks. As Calboy said, he's slipped on LGBT rights.

Zombie Acorn

May 1, 2009, 05:38 PM

The rest of the civilized world makes me think that.

38/50 of the top Hospitals in the world reside outside of the "rest of the civilized world", I would like to keep it that way. If national health care works so great lets go ahead and do a test run on it in California since they seem to be a big supporter. Raise state taxes to whatever it takes to cover everyones health care and have a go at it.

Wow- if it's that easy, then why do we have millions of people without it?

We have millions of people living on welfare every year so nothing would really surprise me. I am not sure, but I think even walmart offers HC to their employees (although I usually frown on trying to sustain on a job that should go to a high school kid).

You are obviously young and in good health, likely with no family to support.

If I had a family to support, I would support them. Why should I be unduly taxed for some family with 12 kids when I do not wish to have any? Seems much more efficient to me that everyone pays their own, you want 12 kids then you can pay for their health care.

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 05:55 PM

38/50 of the top Hospitals in the world reside outside of the "rest of the civilized world", I would like to keep it that way. If national health care works so great lets go ahead and do a test run on it in California since they seem to be a big supporter. Raise state taxes to whatever it takes to cover everyones health care and have a go at it.

Sure- let's do it.

We have millions of people living on welfare every year so nothing would really surprise me. I am not sure, but I think even walmart offers HC to their employees (although I usually frown on trying to sustain on a job that should go to a high school kid).

What does that have to do with what I said?

If I had a family to support, I would support them. Why should I be unduly taxed for some family with 12 kids when I do not wish to have any? Seems much more efficient to me that everyone pays their own, you want 12 kids then you can pay for their health care.

Why should I pay taxes to educate other people's kids when I have none of my own?

Zombie Acorn

May 1, 2009, 06:04 PM

Sure- let's do it.

If it works out we could all try it, I don't see why this isn't the sensible thing to do in reality. We have multiple states to test out new programs on before we blanket the US.

Sure- let's do it.

What does that have to do with what I said?

I just feel that people think that the collective should take care of them these days, more so than should be necessary.

Sure- let's do it.
Why should I pay taxes to educate other people's kids when I have none of my own?

You should know that I am in favor of private schools vs public. Parents tend to play a bigger part in their kids education when they are directly paying for it which is something America urgently needs. I would rather see the public school system as a fail safe in case the parents can't afford it, keep in mind I would not pull all public funding, I just want to see a vast majority of the system be privatized.

NT1440

May 1, 2009, 06:09 PM

I would rather see the public school system as a fail safe in case the parents can't afford it, .

Whats the difference between that and healthcare then?

leekohler

May 1, 2009, 06:12 PM

You should know that I am in favor of private schools vs public. Parents tend to play a bigger part in their kids education when they are directly paying for it which is something America urgently needs. I would rather see the public school system as a fail safe in case the parents can't afford it, keep in mind I would not pull all public funding, I just want to see a vast majority of the system be privatized.

You completely avoided answering my question.

Desertrat

May 2, 2009, 11:18 AM

SLC Flyfishing

May 2, 2009, 11:42 AM

Whats the difference between that and healthcare then?

That's what we have currently, private healthcare is the norm, and medicaid is there as a fail safe for those who can't afford it.

SLC

Ugg

May 2, 2009, 11:53 AM

IMO, one of the things wrong with the high price of health care is the overhead involved; an awful lot of that appears to be CYA and direct costs involved in malpractice insurance, thanks in part to a quirk of our legal system that turns physicians, hospitals and related businesses into a sort of low-risk pinata filled with money. This game requires lawyers and by the most amazing coincidence, guess what profession is best represented in the United States Congress? --Don't look to them to fix this any time soon."

25-30% of Medicare health costs occur during the last year of a person's life.

What this shows me is that there is a serious unwillingness on the part of the medical profession to address end of life issues. I wonder where that comes from? Liberal lawyers, yeah right, it's all about xian fundamentalists. It would be interesting to see a breakdown by state of the numbers. Somehow I think that the far right is squandering more money on Medicare than the godless left.

Too many people in this country who have healthcare, view it as an entitlement. I'll bet that health care costs in this country could be cut by 15% if end of life issues were addressed logically.

Iscariot

May 2, 2009, 12:01 PM

you are claiming a right to enslave the people who provide it to you.

Forgetting, of course, that that person is free to quit at any time.

What an absurd and utterly selfish soundbyte in favour of personal greed at the expense of society. A society, that without, you would be rotting in the ground somewhere. Society doubles your life expectancy, improves your quality of life immeasurably, and grants you access to food, clean water, entertainment, human interaction, and generally satisfies every basic need. But paying a little bit of tax to help support that society is akin to enslavement?

Disgusting.

bobr1952

May 2, 2009, 12:08 PM

Disclaimer: this is an example of who I know and what I've seen, and as such has little to no meaning outside what I'm going to say, but here's what I've noticed about the VA medical system.

Nearly everyone I've conversed with (through my jobs in health care, volunteering in other health care settings, and through friends and family), hates the VA system. They all claim that it's difficult to get the care they seek often times, that there is an immense approval system that has to be gone through before they can get even some basic things done. Most have subsequently either purchased private insurance as a means of gaining access to basic care without hassles, or have taken jobs where there are health care benefits offered.

I also do a fair bit of health care volunteer work with the homeless population, and trying to help them get some of their care through the VA system (many of them are veterans) is nearly impossible. Getting them on medicaid, then sending them through a private health care institution is much easier (and even that is no easy task).

So while you may feel that the VA system suits you just fine, it's not the case for everyone. In fact, wasn't there a story recently about the possibility of returning veterans having to pay for their own injuries?

I've had health care benefits associated with my job ever since I started working full time after high-school. It admittedly seems like I have had better than average coverage with all of my jobs, but I've been nothing but completely happy with my situation. I never had difficulty getting approval for anything I or my wife or kids needed. And I had very low premiums, and often times no co-pays. In fact, I don't think I had to pay anything when my first child was born outside of the $25 copay for my wife's first monthly OB visit, and my wife had a lot of complications with that pregnancy, and a subsequent C-section delivery. The second birth (with a different insurance plan from a different job) cost me $800 all together, if I remember correctly. I guess I've just been lucky in that regard?

SLC

In my case I am not talking about the VA but the Department of Defense Military Healthcare System which is normally called Tricare. It is far from perfect but seems to work ok for me. I really don't know that much about the VA system and again, in my case that's a good thing in that I have no VA-approved disabilities so all of my healthcare comes via my military retirement.

bobr1952

May 2, 2009, 12:13 PM

Yep- I'd say you've been DAMN lucky! I've paid a lot of copays and had my insurance company deny a claim for one of my physical therapy sessions. There was no deductible, they simply refused to pay it. It was unbelievable. Also had two root canals/crowns that cost me well over $2,000 out of pocket even with insurance.

Yes, I can't argue with that--I have been lucky in that there are a reasonable number of health services available to me here in Melbourne through Tricare--Humana manages Tricare here in Florida. I have only had to pay the nominal copay. The biggest rule that cannot be violated with Tricare is that you much get all referrals through your primary doctor and approved by Humana before you go. Maybe having an Air Base close by makes keeps the system in reasonable check. I do agree that dental care does suck but then again, it seems that is the case of a lot of health care systems.

leekohler

May 2, 2009, 12:42 PM

A mix of the philosophical and practical from the Roberta X blog:

"Here's the deal: just as you are not entitled to free food, free housing, a free car or even free potable water, you are not entitled to free health care; each of those things is the result of someone else's labor and if you claim it is yours by right, you are claiming a right to enslave the people who provide it to you. Some friend of the workin' man you are!

IMO, one of the things wrong with the high price of health care is the overhead involved; an awful lot of that appears to be CYA and direct costs involved in malpractice insurance, thanks in part to a quirk of our legal system that turns physicians, hospitals and related businesses into a sort of low-risk pinata filled with money. This game requires lawyers and by the most amazing coincidence, guess what profession is best represented in the United States Congress? --Don't look to them to fix this any time soon."

A fair and honest question: How is free health care in any way a right? Sure, it's nice if the government has the surplus cash on hand with which to pay for it. Trouble is, it's just this sort of "entitlement" which has this U.S. government broke and in debt to the tune of way too many trillions of dollars. We're like a bunch of street-corner winos, arguing the merits of a new Rolls Royce.

'Rat

Still prattling on about malpractice? How many times has that been debunked as a major factor in health care costs?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/jlanders/stories/DN-Landers_21bus.State.Edition1.9be351.html

Capping malpractice damages is a health care reform idea that has swirled around Washington for years. But would it make health care less expensive?

The evidence doesn't show it.

For many years, doctors have complained that they pay huge insurance premiums to defend themselves from malpractice suits. They're right. The premiums are staggering. A gynecologist/obstetrician practicing in Miami has to pay nearly $200,000 a year for insurance coverage. In 2003, ob/gyn malpractice premiums in the Dallas area averaged about $75,000 a year.

Those sorts of expenses make doctors more expensive. On top of that, doctors say they order extra diagnostic tests and other procedures to avoid getting sued, a practice known as defensive medicine.

Voters amended the Texas Constitution in 2003 to cap medical malpractice lawsuits. Doctors remain liable for the loss of earnings and the medical expenses faced by patients harmed by their mistakes, but non-economic damages are limited to $250,000.

Life is now better for Texas doctors.

On average, their insurance premiums have fallen more than 30 percent since 2003, according to the Texas Medical Association. Thousands more doctors have moved to the state.

Expenses escalate

But the cost of health care still is rising. Consumers are paying higher insurance premiums, which continue to escalate faster than earnings.

And according to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy, Medicare spending in Texas rose 24 percent in the three years after the state capped malpractice awards. In Dallas, it went up 27 percent during the same period, 2003 to 2006.

Rep. Michael Burgess, a physician as well as a Republican congressman from Flower Mound, has championed caps on malpractice insurance since coming to Washington in 2002.

He argues that a $250,000 cap on "pain and suffering" damages would improve the national outlook for medical spending, even though things have not turned around in Texas.

"It's still early," he said of the Texas spending climate in the wake of liability caps. "Defensive medicine practices are learned early in a doctor's career. It takes awhile to change that."

A team at the University of Alabama looked into this last year. Their survey of studies related to malpractice insurance, defensive medicine and consumer health insurance premiums looked at 27 states with limits on non-economic damages, including Texas.

No savings

Their conclusion – "Tort reforms have not led to health care cost savings for consumers" – was published in the December issue of Health Sciences Review.

"It's had a really small effect, or else it doesn't seem to change defensive medicine," said Michael Morrisey, a professor of health economics and health insurance and the director of the university's Lister Hill Center for Health Policy.

Families USA, a consumer advocate group in Washington, found health care premiums in Texas increased 86.8 percent from 2000 to 2007.

The cost of the average family health insurance policy went from $6,638 to $12,403.

Employees don't typically see all of this increase because employers pay most of the tab.

But with this sort of compensation cost soaring, wage increases have been going up far more slowly. Median earnings in Texas were up 15 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Medicare spending rose as well.

From 1992 to 2006, spending increased an average of 3.53 percent a year.

In Texas, Medicare spending went up 4.5 percent a year, while in Dallas it rose 5.25 percent.

"Tort reform is not a panacea for health care costs," said Morrisey.

Health economists following the reform debate say none of the other ideas for curbing health care inflation is a silver bullet, either.

But it's important to keep in mind who gains and who loses in the trade-offs that will be part of reform.

As Morrisey and his colleagues put it:

"The results of this study suggest that there are no insurance premium savings that accrue to consumers. Are there other benefits to consumers? If these cannot be identified, it is difficult to see a justification for the loss of legal rights."

Oh and BTW- if health care weren't a right, then why are hospitals required to treat someone regardless of whether they have health insurance? Which is, BTW- a huge reason why medical costs are high. And no one said it was going to be free. We still have to pay for it. We would just be paying for it an a different and more efficient manner.

mactastic

May 2, 2009, 01:12 PM

California since they seem to be a big supporter.
I hesitate to ask, but do you have any proof that California is much more supportive of government-run health care than the US at large?

If I had a family to support, I would support them. Why should I be unduly taxed for some family with 12 kids when I do not wish to have any? Seems much more efficient to me that everyone pays their own, you want 12 kids then you can pay for their health care.
Huh? What does this have to do with the point that you are young and health and without a family to support, thus a $10/hour job with benefits will suffice?

Also, I would note that "thefreemarket" doesn't work the way you describe herein. Every health care plan I have seen has one pay level for the worker, and additional amount for a spouse (or partner), another level for kids, and another level for spouse and kids. IOW, even the current free market doesn't care whether you have one kid or 12. You pay the same premium, and your deductibles are the same whether you have one kid or 12, as is your out-of-pocket max.

A mix of the philosophical and practical from the Roberta X blog:

"Here's the deal: just as you are not entitled to free food, free housing, a free car or even free potable water, you are not entitled to free health care; each of those things is the result of someone else's labor and if you claim it is yours by right, you are claiming a right to enslave the people who provide it to you. Some friend of the workin' man you are!

IMO, one of the things wrong with the high price of health care is the overhead involved; an awful lot of that appears to be CYA and direct costs involved in malpractice insurance, thanks in part to a quirk of our legal system that turns physicians, hospitals and related businesses into a sort of low-risk pinata filled with money. This game requires lawyers and by the most amazing coincidence, guess what profession is best represented in the United States Congress? --Don't look to them to fix this any time soon."

A fair and honest question: How is free health care in any way a right? Sure, it's nice if the government has the surplus cash on hand with which to pay for it. Trouble is, it's just this sort of "entitlement" which has this U.S. government broke and in debt to the tune of way too many trillions of dollars. We're like a bunch of street-corner winos, arguing the merits of a new Rolls Royce.

'Rat

Disgusting.
Quite. Rat, apparently, is an island, functioning outside society without ever utilizing any of it's collective components. I assume he did all the cancer research and treatment himself? It's quite lucky he focused his decades of research on the particular type of cancer he ended up with.

Or maybe he removed it with a well-aimed .38 slug?

Gelfin

May 2, 2009, 02:26 PM

A mix of the philosophical and practical from the Roberta X blog:

"Here's the deal: just as you are not entitled to free food, free housing, a free car or even free potable water, you are not entitled to free health care; each of those things is the result of someone else's labor and if you claim it is yours by right, you are claiming a right to enslave the people who provide it to you. Some friend of the workin' man you are!

Ridiculous Rand-cultist tripe, and not even accurately Randist. "Enslavement" is the kneejerk metaphor, but no one is being enslaved. You pay taxes for a benefit you yourself enjoy, should you draw the short straw. Doctors are paid to do the work they do. They are hardly slaves.

But what you mean, of course, is the poor hardworking millionaire taxpayer will be taxed more heavily than the widow who just gave her only two mites to Jesus. Oh the infamy! Oh the inhumanity!

But the thing is, universal healthcare is a recognition of the idea that when the widow falls into poor health, the state pays the cost anyway. Just like when you gamble with lack of health coverage and lose, the state ultimately covers your bets. Oh, sure, you get wrecked financially in the process too, but you're not just left to die at the door of the emergency room.

The alternative is the kind of society where we do allow people to die in the streets, and although "Roberta X" (whoever she is) might be the sort to accept that as a logical consequence of her position, most people find the idea rather distasteful.

Universal healthcare is also a recognition that if the state takes an interest in keeping the poor widow healthy, she will be in a better position to become employed and thus contribute both to the GDP and by extension the tax base. As before, it is not the individual's duty to attend to the whole economy, or an employer's. That is, in part, what a state is for, and a healthy workforce is a boon to the economy. If Ms. X wants to put healthcare on par with food, shelter, transportation and water that's fine by me, because the government already does subsidize those things for people who cannot otherwise afford them. Although I presume living on government cheese is what Ms. X believes constitutes a "welfare queen." We do not live in the vicious society Ms. X either thinks we do or wishes we did.

I always thought Atlas Shrugged would have been greatly enhanced with a scene where somebody gets shot and robbed, and goes to a tall, heroic and uncannily handsome doctor who demands upfront payment, then refuses treatment when the victim says his wallet was stolen. "What about your oath," asks the victim, at which point the heroic rugged individualist doctor becomes incensed and launches himself into a fifteen page speech about his refusal to be enslaved to the idea that his services are owed to any man while the victim bleeds to death on the floor. The doctor then sends the victim's family a bill for the cleaning services, because his janitorial staff should not be enslaved to another man's need.

Then the police show up and arrest him for depraved indifference, but only to show that the police are controlled by looters and moochers, thus preventing him from going off and joining John Galt's commune-with-dollars.

Only, really, that wouldn't have happened. It's been many years since I read it, but as I recall it in The Virtue of Selfishness Rand spends a great deal of space offering thought experiments and rationales by which an Objectivist can justify to himself saving a drowning stranger based on a fundamental dignity and value of human life. The fact that her philosophy needs to rationalize not coldly watching somebody die should have been a clue she'd gone wrong to begin with, but at least she went to the trouble of giving a nod to the moral intuitions that monstrous idiots like "Roberta X" apparently want to throw away in the name of a political principle.

We're like a bunch of street-corner winos, arguing the merits of a new Rolls Royce.

This is little to do with what the proper role of government ought to be, and a lot more to do with the gross misanthropy of Internet "libertarians" towards a notional "common person" who is always scheming to mooch off "good" (productive) people like, of course, the Internet "libertarian" himself.

leekohler

May 2, 2009, 03:00 PM

Ridiculous Rand-cultist tripe, and not even accurately Randist. "Enslavement" is the kneejerk metaphor, but no one is being enslaved. You pay taxes for a benefit you yourself enjoy, should you draw the short straw. Doctors are paid to do the work they do. They are hardly slaves.

But what you mean, of course, is the poor hardworking millionaire taxpayer will be taxed more heavily than the widow who just gave her only two mites to Jesus. Oh the infamy! Oh the inhumanity!

But the thing is, universal healthcare is a recognition of the idea that when the widow falls into poor health, the state pays the cost anyway. Just like when you gamble with lack of health coverage and lose, the state ultimately covers your bets. Oh, sure, you get wrecked financially in the process too, but you're not just left to die at the door of the emergency room.

The alternative is the kind of society where we do allow people to die in the streets, and although "Roberta X" (whoever she is) might be the sort to accept that as a logical consequence of her position, most people find the idea rather distasteful.

Universal healthcare is also a recognition that if the state takes an interest in keeping the poor widow healthy, she will be in a better position to become employed and thus contribute both to the GDP and by extension the tax base. As before, it is not the individual's duty to attend to the whole economy, or an employer's. That is, in part, what a state is for, and a healthy workforce is a boon to the economy. If Ms. X wants to put healthcare on par with food, shelter, transportation and water that's fine by me, because the government already does subsidize those things for people who cannot otherwise afford them. Although I presume living on government cheese is what Ms. X believes constitutes a "welfare queen." We do not live in the vicious society Ms. X either thinks we do or wishes we did.

I always thought Atlas Shrugged would have been greatly enhanced with a scene where somebody gets shot and robbed, and goes to a tall, heroic and uncannily handsome doctor who demands upfront payment, then refuses treatment when the victim says his wallet was stolen. "What about your oath," asks the victim, at which point the heroic rugged individualist doctor becomes incensed and launches himself into a fifteen page speech about his refusal to be enslaved to the idea that his services are owed to any man while the victim bleeds to death on the floor. The doctor then sends the victim's family a bill for the cleaning services, because his janitorial staff should not be enslaved to another man's need.

Then the police show up and arrest him for depraved indifference, but only to show that the police are controlled by looters and moochers, thus preventing him from going off and joining John Galt's commune-with-dollars.

Only, really, that wouldn't have happened. It's been many years since I read it, but as I recall it in The Virtue of Selfishness Rand spends a great deal of space offering thought experiments and rationales by which an Objectivist can justify to himself saving a drowning stranger based on a fundamental dignity and value of human life. The fact that her philosophy needs to rationalize not coldly watching somebody die should have been a clue she'd gone wrong to begin with, but at least she went to the trouble of giving a nod to the moral intuitions that monstrous idiots like "Roberta X" apparently want to throw away in the name of a political principle.

One of the reasons we still don't have universal health care in this country is that fact that conservatives are still holding on to the antiquated idea that the free market can solve everything. It's quite obvious in the case of health care that this is simply not true. There has never been a more shining example of that than our health care system. It's completely inefficient and bloated. Until people recognize this, we'll stuck with it. More and more people are losing their coverage. What happens when the scale tips and MOST people don't have it? Is that what has to happen to get things changed?

Oh- and Ayn Rand was an a**hole.

iObama

May 2, 2009, 03:28 PM

Those tea parties you saw were NOT the "basic US voter". And if they are, this country is in a huge amount of trouble.

Why, because those people don't blindly follow the government?

I don't get why you're so opposed to people who participated in those tea parties. Sorry that they don't want to be taxed to hell to bail out companies who brought the whole freakin' economy down with them! Wouldn't a SMART person not want to throw their tax dollars at companies who have done nothing but suck at existing?!?!

Stop being so partisan and attacking people because they aren't part of your party. If I were you, I'd be pretty furious at the things my tax dollars are being spent on also.

Tax breaks for 95% of Americans is IMPOSSIBLE when he's already spent upwards of 4 trillion dollars. Get real, people.

/venting

That being said, I haven't given up on Obama yet, and I'm not going to say that his plans will fail. However, at the current moment, they're looking pretty dumb.

leekohler

May 2, 2009, 03:33 PM

Why, because those people don't blindly follow the government?

I don't get why you're so opposed to people who participated in those tea parties. Sorry that they don't want to be taxed to hell to bail out companies who brought the whole freakin' economy down with them! Wouldn't a SMART person not want to throw their tax dollars at companies who have done nothing but suck at existing?!?!

Stop being so partisan and attacking people because they aren't part of your party. If I were you, I'd be pretty furious at the things my tax dollars are being spent on also.

Tax breaks for 95% of Americans is IMPOSSIBLE when he's already spent upwards of 4 trillion dollars. Get real, people.

/venting

That being said, I haven't given up on Obama yet, and I'm not going to say that his plans will fail. However, at the current moment, they're looking pretty dumb.

Excuse me- if those tea parties were about taxes, I might have been on board, but they weren't. By and large they were anti-Obama rallies full of right wing extremists. Didn't you see all the coverage? It was simply about attacking Obama and calling him a Muslim, Hitler, Marx and accusing him of enslaving the white man. They were disgusting displays and I want no part of that.

Again- had they stuck to the bailout issue, I probably would have been more on their side, but they didn't. How many times do I have to say this in this forum before people get that I wasn't in favor of bailouts? It seems like I'm on the millionth time. Please pay attention.

Gelfin

May 2, 2009, 03:36 PM

Oh- and Ayn Rand was an a**hole.

Tangent:

Heartily agreed. Just one of those other weird things I don't agree with but nevertheless know a fair amount about. :o

The thing is, there is a core of a useful idea there, and it involves understanding the line between caring about other people and letting them own you. It's not a philosophy in the sense she wants it to be understood. More a self-help book sort of idea, which is I think one reason so many people take to it with such a near-religious fervor. Also, it gives people permission to be **********, something many people desperately crave.

But Rand herself was afflicted with no small amount of misanthropy, and it bleeds into her work, resulting in a confused message. The great schism in Objectivist thought (provided you agree to pretend, as Objectivists do, that it was not motivated by Rand's personal relationship drama) seems to have turned on the idea that a lack of any strict obligation among people to serve one another should not imply an obligation never to provide service to others or to forego basic human sympathy.

In fact the "heretic" and former Rand boy-toy Nathaniel Brendan went on to write self-help books about building and maintaining a healthy self concept.

leekohler

May 2, 2009, 03:42 PM

Tangent:

Heartily agreed. Just one of those other weird things I don't agree with but nevertheless know a fair amount about. :o

The thing is, there is a core of a useful idea there, and it involves understanding the line between caring about other people and letting them own you. It's not a philosophy in the sense she wants it to be understood. More a self-help book sort of idea, which is I think one reason so many people take to it with such a near-religious fervor. Also, it gives people permission to be **********, something many people desperately crave.

But Rand herself was afflicted with no small amount of misanthropy, and it bleeds into her work, resulting in a confused message. The great schism in Objectivist thought (provided you agree to pretend, as Objectivists do, that it was not motivated by Rand's personal relationship drama) seems to have turned on the idea that a lack of any strict obligation among people to serve one another should not imply an obligation never to provide service to others or to forego basic human sympathy.

In fact the "heretic" and former Rand boy-toy Nathaniel Brendan went on to write self-help books about building and maintaining a healthy self concept.

There's certainly nothing wrong with a certain amount of hedonism. But she took it way too far.

yg17

May 2, 2009, 04:34 PM

Excuse me- if those tea parties were about taxes, I might have been on board, but they weren't. By and large they were anti-Obama rallies full of right wing extremists. Didn't you see all the coverage? It was simply about attacking Obama and calling him a Muslim, Hitler, Marx and accusing him of enslaving the white man. They were disgusting displays and I want no part of that.

Again- had they stuck to the bailout issue, I probably would have been more on their side, but they didn't. How many times do I have to say this in this forum before people get that I wasn't in favor of bailouts? It seems like I'm on the millionth time. Please pay attention.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The teabagging parties were klan rallies for people too lazy to put on a white hood.

mactastic

May 2, 2009, 04:35 PM

Excuse me- if those tea parties were about taxes, I might have been on board, but they weren't. By and large they were anti-Obama rallies full of right wing extremists. Didn't you see all the coverage? It was simply about attacking Obama and calling him a Muslim, Hitler, Marx and accusing him of enslaving the white man. They were disgusting displays and I want no part of that.

Again- had they stuck to the bailout issue, I probably would have been more on their side, but they didn't. How many times do I have to say this in this forum before people get that I wasn't in favor of bailouts? It seems like I'm on the millionth time. Please pay attention.
Exactly... and how do we know these were anti-Obama rallies, and not people pissed off over government spending and taxes? Because these same people were silent when George W. Bush bailed out the banks. Or if not silent, certainly unwilling to go and teabag random people in a park somewhere carrying signs comparing Bush to Hitler.

That took Freedom's Watch to organize and FOXNoise to provide free advertising.

Desertrat

May 2, 2009, 07:46 PM

Interviews with tea-party attendees afterwards indicated that the top two gripes had to do with bailouts and the giant deficits. There was a lot of fear expressed about the ongoing expansion of governmental power over business. The income tax as such was of lesser importance, but what the money is spent on is a major concern. Few were attacking Obama personally, but were definitely attacking his ideas.

A large number of tea parties denied speaking time to politicians, and there have been numerous interviews with local organizers who vehemently stated that there was absolutely no outside monetary assistance to their efforts. They didn't want political pablum from the same old tired retreads. Sure, there was the Sean Hannity "do" at the Alamo, but that was but one of some 70 or 80 tea parties around the state.

Saying that these were "Right Wing" or "KKK" is childish nonsense. Nowhere near being accurate or factual.

mactastic

May 2, 2009, 08:12 PM

Few were attacking Obama personally, but were definitely attacking his ideas.
Define "few" please.

Also, perhaps you can explain why the bailouts and giant deficits of the Bush years were not sufficient cause for these folks to start teabagging; yet under Obama those very same actions for some reason motivated these folks to protest?

yg17

May 2, 2009, 08:24 PM

Saying that these were "Right Wing" or "KKK" is childish nonsense. Nowhere near being accurate or factual.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7482084&postcount=27

Most of those signs are racist and the crap I would expect at a klan rally.

leekohler

May 2, 2009, 08:27 PM

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7482084&postcount=27

Most of those signs are racist and the crap I would expect at a klan rally.

Once again, 'rat is living in denial. There was one downtown here and all I could see were anti-Obama signs. It looked like they were protesting Obama, not his policies. Some of them were downright scary.

NT1440

May 2, 2009, 09:18 PM

Define "few" please.

Also, perhaps you can explain why the bailouts and giant deficits of the Bush years were not sufficient cause for these folks to start teabagging; yet under Obama those very same actions for some reason motivated these folks to protest?

Because this go around the got riled up by certain media sources, who then organized for them. Simple.

What? you didnt know that one particular party happens to be the party of hypocrisy?;)

mactastic

May 2, 2009, 09:38 PM

Because this go around the got riled up by certain media sources, who then organized for them. Simple.
It's not even that. Given that Bush ran up huge deficits, and spending under the Bush administration put drunken sailors to shame; the only thing that changed is that a Democrat became president. Thus it becomes nearly impossible to claim that these folks weren't sent out there specifically to protest the new Democratic president.

What? you didnt know that one particular party happens to be the party of hypocrisy?;)
Both parties are replete with examples of hypocrisy. However, it is disingenuous in the extreme to claim that these folks were motivated only by deficits and government spending. If they were, they would have taken to the streets, teabags in hand, when Dick Cheney stated that "deficits don't matter".

The fact is, these people simply don't like Obama, and they haven't taken well to losing an election.

MikeTheC

May 3, 2009, 02:36 AM

skunk

May 3, 2009, 02:58 AM

To be honest, I don't see this being resolved peaceably. Any chance of that happening went out the window when the DHS issued it's effectively anti-conservative-person domestic terror threat report back in early April.

Why should we conservatives feel safe in our homes or secure in our persons when we're being told by "The State" that we're a threat to it? That simply defies logic.The undisguised threat in your post shows precisely why "The State" might feel you are dangerous. What could be more blindingly obvious?

MikeTheC

May 3, 2009, 03:22 AM

The undisguised threat in your post shows precisely why "The State" might feel you are dangerous. What could be more blindingly obvious?
Of course anyone has the capacity to be a threat if they're threatened. If you pulled a gun on me, as a for instance (and I'm not saying you would, I'm certain you're a perfectly nice guy IRL) absolutely I would become a threat to you, even if only a potential one. You'd better shoot, and your shot better count, because otherwise absolutely I would take you out.

But, let's look at this in a different way. You're walking down the street, and I'm walking down the street, and you don't pull a gun on me. You also don't threaten me in any other way. Likewise, I don't pull a gun on you or threaten you in any other way. Seems like neither of us would be much of a threat, potentially or otherwise, to each other.

I'll assume you took this kind of concept into account when you responded to me.

skunk

May 3, 2009, 03:29 AM

I'll assume you took this kind of concept into account when you responded to me.Of course. However, it all depends on how ready you are to read something as a threat, doesn't it? If you can read Obama as a "Socialist", you can make any other kind of foolish mistake too.

MikeTheC

May 3, 2009, 03:46 AM

Of course. However, it all depends on how ready you are to read something as a threat, doesn't it? If you can read Obama as a "Socialist", you can make any other kind of foolish mistake too.
Which assumes that Obama is either not a socialist, or does not favor policies which are effectively socialist.

Now, I don't know if you've been to a bookstore or even a comic book shop in the U.S. lately (I know that may sound like a really weird grouping, but just follow me on this) so I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Obama is on so many different things it's like he is some kind of rock star. The reason I mention comic books is that he's all over comic books, and has been since the election (though much more so since the inauguration). To me it is almost a bit Orwellian. Now, I know that's a touch of hyperbole on my part, but I'm just saying I find it disturbing.

I find it offensive in the extreme (not against you, you haven't attacked me) that the Government, now under liberal control, is using its power to misrepresent myself and many, many other good Americans as something we're not. I am very tired of people who don't support Obama being tarred with the epithet of racist, or bigot, or white power supremecist, or some other such complete and utter nonsense. Frankly, it's a damned shame Alan Keyes wasn't in the running this time, since a TON of us conservatives would have been almost infinitely more likely to have voted for him than McCain. However, that wasn't in the cards. I also find it offensive that they are picking on servicemen and women who are returning to civilian life after having served their country. What kind of an insult is that? Again, people who don't share the liberal world view are the enemy. We're to be hated. Bush is to be hated. You know, I can't think of a single other President (at least in my lifetime) who was as hated as Bush. Not Clinton, not Bush Senior, Not Reagan... hell, not even Kennedy (before my time) and he was assassinated! I think you'd have to go back to (ironically enough) Lincoln to find a President as widely disparaged and hated (and also assassinated!) to find one hated as much as Bush. And yet look at how we view Lincoln. He's the "emancipator" and liberator and unifier, blah blah blah. He was a conservative! But never mind that, he freed the slaves, and you can't touch that. Not ever! (Oh boy. What a crock. But at least it's nice to see liberals being consistent about more than just taxation and social welfare spending.)

Rt&Dzine

May 3, 2009, 11:24 AM

I find it offensive in the extreme (not against you, you haven't attacked me) that the Government, now under liberal control, is using its power to misrepresent myself and many, many other good Americans as something we're not. I am very tired of people who don't support Obama being tarred with the epithet of racist, or bigot, or white power supremecist, or some other such complete and utter nonsense.

The government isn't using its power to misrepresent the people who don't support Obama. I've read the blogs, seen the videos, comments on forums, etc. Many of these people are doing a good job of "misrepresenting" themselves.

And do you remember how "liberals" were treated during the Bush years? People protesting the Iraq invasion were treated worse than the tea baggers. Ann Coulter demonized the 911 Widows because they didn't support Bush. Dixie Chicks were demonized for criticizing Bush. The media was afraid to speak out. On and on. Anyone who didn't support Bush was "Un-American."

leekohler

May 3, 2009, 12:05 PM

Which assumes that Obama is either not a socialist, or does not favor policies which are effectively socialist.

Now, I don't know if you've been to a bookstore or even a comic book shop in the U.S. lately (I know that may sound like a really weird grouping, but just follow me on this) so I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Obama is on so many different things it's like he is some kind of rock star. The reason I mention comic books is that he's all over comic books, and has been since the election (though much more so since the inauguration). To me it is almost a bit Orwellian. Now, I know that's a touch of hyperbole on my part, but I'm just saying I find it disturbing.

I find it offensive in the extreme (not against you, you haven't attacked me) that the Government, now under liberal control, is using its power to misrepresent myself and many, many other good Americans as something we're not. I am very tired of people who don't support Obama being tarred with the epithet of racist, or bigot, or white power supremecist, or some other such complete and utter nonsense. Frankly, it's a damned shame Alan Keyes wasn't in the running this time, since a TON of us conservatives would have been almost infinitely more likely to have voted for him than McCain. However, that wasn't in the cards. I also find it offensive that they are picking on servicemen and women who are returning to civilian life after having served their country. What kind of an insult is that? Again, people who don't share the liberal world view are the enemy. We're to be hated. Bush is to be hated. You know, I can't think of a single other President (at least in my lifetime) who was as hated as Bush. Not Clinton, not Bush Senior, Not Reagan... hell, not even Kennedy (before my time) and he was assassinated! I think you'd have to go back to (ironically enough) Lincoln to find a President as widely disparaged and hated (and also assassinated!) to find one hated as much as Bush. And yet look at how we view Lincoln. He's the "emancipator" and liberator and unifier, blah blah blah. He was a conservative! But never mind that, he freed the slaves, and you can't touch that. Not ever! (Oh boy. What a crock. But at least it's nice to see liberals being consistent about more than just taxation and social welfare spending.)

The fact that you would vote for Alan Keyes is frightening. Here's a man who disowned his daughter because she's a lesbian. Threw her out of the house. He's a disgusting human being. Any parent who would do that to a child isn't worthy of having children. If your measure of a "good American" is that guy, then you're far from being a "good American".

Bush was hated because of the things he did, not because he was a conservative. I can't even believe you sit here and defend Bush. If you're offended by Obama, so be it. I'm not going to worry about that. I'm offended by you. Your blind support of Bush speaks volumes.

As far as service men and women go- I have friends and family in the armed forces. All of them served in Iraq. NOT ONE OF THEM said that war was worth it. NOT ONE. Bush abused the hell out of my loved ones for nothing.

MikeTheC

May 3, 2009, 12:36 PM

I can't even believe you sit here and defend Bush.
Clearly we share no common ground in our respective world views, so it would be pointless to respond to this. Suffice it to say I don't accept or agree with your reasoning, and you likewise don't accept or agree with mine. Even if we were here in person hashing it out, bashing each other over the head with a baseball bat, it wouldn't change anything.

For what it's worth, vis a vis your friends and family who've served, though this may come as something of a shock to you, I actually do appreciate their service to this country and willingness to put their lives on the line for it.

Oh, and speaking of... ask them how they feel about John Kerry now, particularly vis a vis his "you either go to college and get a good job or wind up being a soldier fighting for this country" remark.

leekohler

May 3, 2009, 01:02 PM

Clearly we share no common ground in our respective world views, so it would be pointless to respond to this. Suffice it to say I don't accept or agree with your reasoning, and you likewise don't accept or agree with mine. Even if we were here in person hashing it out, bashing each other over the head with a baseball bat, it wouldn't change anything.

For what it's worth, vis a vis your friends and family who've served, though this may come as something of a shock to you, I actually do appreciate their service to this country and willingness to put their lives on the line for it.

Oh, and speaking of... ask them how they feel about John Kerry now, particularly vis a vis his "you either go to college and get a good job or wind up being a soldier fighting for this country" remark.

My friends and family are intelligent enough to know that he didn't mean to be insulting. They all voted for him.

Rt&Dzine

May 3, 2009, 01:05 PM

Oh, and speaking of... ask them how they feel about John Kerry now, particularly vis a vis his "you either go to college and get a good job or wind up being a soldier fighting for this country" remark.

He make a stupid comment (although he didn't say it quite the way you're paraphrasing). But he served his country. Unlike many who criticize him. A stupid comment versus invading a country under false pretenses, resulting in loss of lives and economic disaster.

mactastic

May 3, 2009, 04:23 PM

DesertRat and a few others essentially speak (mostly) for me here.

I simply see this as a sign of things to come. Liberals in this country have an incessant, nearly maniacal hatred for conservatives and their worldview. Conservatives (I'm not talking the Republican party, but actual conservatives) think that the liberals are going to lead this country down the path to destruction. Neither side feels the other has any credibility, though at least the conservatives typically have a history of trying to "get along". Liberals on the other hand are quick to tell a conservative to F.O.A.D. (you work it out)
Why is it then, that conservative "jokes" nearly always revolve around violence, with a dash of repressed homophobia thrown in for good measure? Don't injure yourself getting down off that high horse you're on. Liberals are the only ones that say FOAD? Only liberals have a nearly maniacal hatred of conservatives? Please. Your ignorance is stunning.

There's no middle ground, and there are no fundamental areas of agreement between the two sides, which are becoming more polarized by the second. Moreover, this country is taking a massive leftward swing and has become positively anti-conservative militant. From where I sit, conservative extremists are nothing compared to leftist extremists. To be honest, I don't see this being resolved peaceably. Any chance of that happening went out the window when the DHS issued it's effectively anti-conservative-person domestic terror threat report back in early April.
Oh yeah, you mean the DHS report written by the Bush administration? Yep, Obama sure has it in for you there, considering he didn't even have a hand in writing the damn thing. Get your facts straight before you spew this nonsense.

And remind us again, what political ideology did Timothy McVeigh follow? He was a communist, right? A radical liberal that hung around with the Earth First! crowd?

Oh right, he was a *conservative*. And he still holds the record for highest death toll in an act of domestic terrorism.

Why should we conservatives feel safe in our homes or secure in our persons when we're being told by "The State" that we're a threat to it? That simply defies logic. Unless all the conservatives suddenly wimp out and decide to live on their knees, I only know of one parallel in American history to what may be upon us in the future.
Conservatives have been pissing their pants in fear since 9/11. Why should it be any different now? You guys whined like little babies then, and you're still doing it now. Living on your knees? You're already there, my friend. Some dignity would behoove you.

So, from that context, what does it matter what grades we give to Obama?

And to those of you out there, regardless of what side you're on or think you're on, who think I'm a complete slobbering nutcase for thinking what I'm thinking, please understand I hope I'm wrong. I really, desperately do. This isn't something I really "want" to be correct about.
In that case, don't worry. You're wrong. Very wrong.

Of course anyone has the capacity to be a threat if they're threatened. If you pulled a gun on me, as a for instance (and I'm not saying you would, I'm certain you're a perfectly nice guy IRL) absolutely I would become a threat to you, even if only a potential one. You'd better shoot, and your shot better count, because otherwise absolutely I would take you out.
I'm sure you're a perfectly nice person IRL as well, but believe me when I say that if you made any threatening move towards me I would absolutely slaughter you with my bare hands. You'd better take me out first, because you would not get a second chance.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

But, let's look at this in a different way. You're walking down the street, and I'm walking down the street, and you don't pull a gun on me. You also don't threaten me in any other way. Likewise, I don't pull a gun on you or threaten you in any other way. Seems like neither of us would be much of a threat, potentially or otherwise, to each other.

I'll assume you took this kind of concept into account when you responded to me.
Of course, if you didn't present a threat of any kind to me, you would be in no danger. I'm sure you thought of this when you composed your post.

Which assumes that Obama is either not a socialist, or does not favor policies which are effectively socialist.

Now, I don't know if you've been to a bookstore or even a comic book shop in the U.S. lately (I know that may sound like a really weird grouping, but just follow me on this) so I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Obama is on so many different things it's like he is some kind of rock star. The reason I mention comic books is that he's all over comic books, and has been since the election (though much more so since the inauguration). To me it is almost a bit Orwellian. Now, I know that's a touch of hyperbole on my part, but I'm just saying I find it disturbing.

I find it offensive in the extreme (not against you, you haven't attacked me) that the Government, now under liberal control, is using its power to misrepresent myself and many, many other good Americans as something we're not. I am very tired of people who don't support Obama being tarred with the epithet of racist, or bigot, or white power supremecist, or some other such complete and utter nonsense. Frankly, it's a damned shame Alan Keyes wasn't in the running this time, since a TON of us conservatives would have been almost infinitely more likely to have voted for him than McCain. However, that wasn't in the cards. I also find it offensive that they are picking on servicemen and women who are returning to civilian life after having served their country. What kind of an insult is that? Again, people who don't share the liberal world view are the enemy. We're to be hated. Bush is to be hated. You know, I can't think of a single other President (at least in my lifetime) who was as hated as Bush. Not Clinton, not Bush Senior, Not Reagan... hell, not even Kennedy (before my time) and he was assassinated! I think you'd have to go back to (ironically enough) Lincoln to find a President as widely disparaged and hated (and also assassinated!) to find one hated as much as Bush. And yet look at how we view Lincoln. He's the "emancipator" and liberator and unifier, blah blah blah. He was a conservative! But never mind that, he freed the slaves, and you can't touch that. Not ever! (Oh boy. What a crock. But at least it's nice to see liberals being consistent about more than just taxation and social welfare spending.)
Well, it's highly fashionable these days among the extreme right to have an irrational, maniacal hatred of Obama in a way never seen towards George W. Bush. In fact, I would say that Obama is already hated more than Bush or Clinton ever was.

And don't worry. I know I'll never convince you that I am right, just as you will never convince me that you are right, so really there's no point in responding or even acknowledging the truth of what I have said. Enjoy your black and white world! Oh, and use protection when you teabag, ok? I want you and yours to be safe, you know...