Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
July polls: 66% of Americans view Obama favorably, Palin now at 40%
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
The one thing we agree on is that McCain/Palin would not have helped. McCain never even understood the problem.
The thing we will never agree on is that Obama surrounded himself with Wall Street advisors that took care of their homeboys first, not the working class men and women of America that had been suffering, and continue to suffer.
He sold out Main Street for Wall Street.
We needed jobs, Obama has not even thrown us a bone .
Biden hit the nail on the head.
The one thing we agree on is that McCain/Palin would not have helped. McCain never even understood the problem.
The thing we will never agree on is that Obama surrounded himself with Wall Street advisors that took care of their homeboys first, not the working class men and women of America that had been suffering, and continue to suffer.
He sold out Main Street for Wall Street.
We needed jobs, Obama has not even thrown us a bone .
Biden hit the nail on the head.
If one year from now the economy has turned completely around, jobs have returned to at least Bush levels when Bush LEFT office and housing/stocks have rebounded, will you think differently once you realize that at that time one YEAR from now, Obama would have still only been President for 1.5 years?
"TO MICHAEL!"
McCain? The same McCain who, first, said the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" and, then, said we "need to suspend campaigning" because the economy was so bad?
This is an ideology --most people think of Republicans as a party-- that lacks not only coherence but rationality; this is scary. Raising the culture to where people are immune to the absolute self-interested and cynical double-speak --the economy is strong, and then it is weak when it would help your campaign-- is a challenge. If you were Palin and inherited a vast, ignorant culture like that . . . you would be NUTS not to exploit it. You still had (a) war psychology and (b) right-wing religion domination.
Not make a difference, some of you say? If McCain/Palin were running the show, I would head for the hills.
I would be a complete and total Obama convert if he took NAFTA and ripped it to shreads. Those millions of jobs we've given away? Yeah I think we could use a few of those back.
The Chrysler minivan plant in St. Louis shut down and re-opened in Canada. What kind of bullshit is that? Instead of going to the root of the problem Obama would rather drain more tax dollars from the public so big business can keep shipping jobs overseas.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
Actually, as we can see now, the compromise mixed economy/big government republican McCain/Palin ticket would have been far, far better than this socialist mess Obama is trying to shove down our throats.
McCain/Palin is definitely looking like the lesser of evils now, that's for sure. But hindsight is 20/20.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Actually, as we can see now, the compromise mixed economy/big government republican McCain/Palin ticket would have been far, far better than this socialist mess Obama is trying to shove down our throats.
McCain/Palin is definitely looking like the lesser of evils now, that's for sure. But hindsight is 20/20.
Fishermage,
Sometimes I agree with you; sometimes I disagree with you. On this point, however, I neither agree nor disagree. I am not able to necessarily provide an explanation other than to say, look, when it comes to MEDICINE and FINANCE, these policies look like Bush on steroids (and without sleep). When it comes to Iraq and Afganistan, we see, in Iraq, the Bush plan, and in Afghanistan, the Bush plan with acceleration.
On the other hand, when it comes to important tax policies, stimulus spending, and so forth, this is Obama.
We need liberal policies: strengthening, and rebuilding, the institutions that have created and sustained the middle-class in the United States. Our middle-class is our great strength, and needs to be re-created with a new New Deal, beginning, above all else, with universal health care and tax reform.
Actually, as we can see now, the compromise mixed economy/big government republican McCain/Palin ticket would have been far, far better than this socialist mess Obama is trying to shove down our throats.
McCain/Palin is definitely looking like the lesser of evils now, that's for sure. But hindsight is 20/20.
Fishermage,
Sometimes I agree with you; sometimes I disagree with you. On this point, however, I neither agree nor disagree. I am not able to necessarily provide an explanation other than to say, look, when it comes to MEDICINE and FINANCE, these policies look like Bush on steroids (and without sleep). When it comes to Iraq and Afganistan, we see, in Iraq, the Bush plan, and in Afghanistan, the Bush plan with acceleration.
On the other hand, when it comes to important tax policies, stimulus spending, and so forth, this is Obama.
We need liberal policies: strengthening, and rebuilding, the institutions that have created and sustained the middle-class in the United States. Our middle-class is our great strength, and needs to be re-created with a new New Deal, beginning, above all else, with universal health care and tax reform.
Liberal policies is what we have had -- creeping socialism produced the mess we are in. We need to get the government OUT of it and return to market basd health care.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't really disagree with what you are trying to say here declaredemer, but I really hope you don't honestly mean New Deal. As in emulating FDR's version and HS Truman's Fair Deal. Because both of those are a bust (IMO) and are part of the reason we have the huge burden on our government's finances now.
And Richard Nixon. Want to sound clever at a cocktail party? Tell your host, and the attendees, that Richard Nixon was, and he really was, a liberal president: Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan (1974), guaranteed minimum income; tax increases (1969), ATM (alternative minimum tax to crack down on wealthy Americans who used tax shelters), and passage of the Clean Air Act, which the EPA called a golden age. Nixon was truly a liberal.*
Sir, it is the dismantling of, and the looting from, FDR's middle-class institutions that is creating the insecure middle-class (stagnate wages, crumbling health care), weakened unions, loss of labor's bargaining power, workers' rights, etc.
*I have to decided, perhaps unwisely, to not discuss the "movement conservative" political tactics of Richard Nixon. It is not relevant to this discussion, and it would only distract us from the point at hand: i.e., answering a simple question, which is why the middle-class is dying? The weakened, and looted, state of the institutions that created the middle-class.
The only thing that is different between a liberal and a progressive is that liberalism is a belief system and progressives act-out and pursue liberal policies.
In a weird sense, however, since we are playing with semantics (here, the word "liberal")-- I am conservative. I want to strengthen and re-created pro-middle-class institutions. I want to expand health care coverage. I want to ensure quality health care, education, and so forth.
We need a new New Deal. We need universal health care.
The only thing that is different between a liberal and a progressive is that liberalism is a belief system and progressives act-out and pursue liberal policies.
In a weird sense, however, since we are playing with semantics (here, the word "liberal")-- I am conservative. I want to strengthen and re-created pro-middle-class institutions. I want to expand health care coverage. I want to ensure quality health care, education, and so forth.
We need a new New Deal. We need universal health care.
You are "conservative," almost reactionary in the sense taht what you advocate was shown to be a failure in the 70s. You are advocating the same old deal -- more socialism, bit by bit -- maybe a whole lot now. Sill, nothing new. Old. tired, dead ideas. "Progressiviism has been shown to be a dead end. Leave it in the past.
We need a New Deal. We need to embrace free markets.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The only thing that is different between a liberal and a progressive is that liberalism is a belief system and progressives act-out and pursue liberal policies.
In a weird sense, however, since we are playing with semantics (here, the word "liberal")-- I am conservative. I want to strengthen and re-created pro-middle-class institutions. I want to expand health care coverage. I want to ensure quality health care, education, and so forth.
We need a new New Deal. We need universal health care.
You are "conservative," almost reactionary in the sense taht what you advocate was shown to be a failure in the 70s. You are advocating the same old deal -- more socialism, bit by bit -- maybe a whole lot now. Sill, nothing new. Old. tired, dead ideas. "Progressiviism has been shown to be a dead end. Leave it in the past.
We need a New Deal. We need to embrace free markets.
I do embrace free markets. I also embrace safety nets --such as socialized insurance, though people mistakenly if not unwittingly understand it as "socialized medicine" or "socialized health care"-- that creates the middle-class.
The free market will not, and cannot, create the middle-class absent institutions that deals with the fall-outs, flaws, and failings of a pure free market system.
Health care is not oil; it is not a commodity. The for profit health care system is a killing drain on our free market.
The only thing that is different between a liberal and a progressive is that liberalism is a belief system and progressives act-out and pursue liberal policies.
In a weird sense, however, since we are playing with semantics (here, the word "liberal")-- I am conservative. I want to strengthen and re-created pro-middle-class institutions. I want to expand health care coverage. I want to ensure quality health care, education, and so forth.
We need a new New Deal. We need universal health care.
You are "conservative," almost reactionary in the sense taht what you advocate was shown to be a failure in the 70s. You are advocating the same old deal -- more socialism, bit by bit -- maybe a whole lot now. Sill, nothing new. Old. tired, dead ideas. "Progressiviism has been shown to be a dead end. Leave it in the past.
We need a New Deal. We need to embrace free markets.
I do embrace free markets. I also embrace safety nets --such as socialized insurance, though people mistakenly if not unwittingly understand it as "socialized medicine" or "socialized health care"-- that creates the middle-class.
The free market will not, and cannot, create the middle-class absent institutions that deals with the fall-outs, flaws, and failings of a pure free market system.
Health care is not oil; it is not a commodity. The for profit health care system is a killing drain on our free market.
Health Care is a not a commodity -- it is a market of various goods and services. it is private property. It is not yours or any elite's to dispense with as you see fit.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The only thing that is different between a liberal and a progressive is that liberalism is a belief system and progressives act-out and pursue liberal policies.
In a weird sense, however, since we are playing with semantics (here, the word "liberal")-- I am conservative. I want to strengthen and re-created pro-middle-class institutions. I want to expand health care coverage. I want to ensure quality health care, education, and so forth.
We need a new New Deal. We need universal health care.
You are "conservative," almost reactionary in the sense taht what you advocate was shown to be a failure in the 70s. You are advocating the same old deal -- more socialism, bit by bit -- maybe a whole lot now. Sill, nothing new. Old. tired, dead ideas. "Progressiviism has been shown to be a dead end. Leave it in the past.
We need a New Deal. We need to embrace free markets.
I do embrace free markets. I also embrace safety nets --such as socialized insurance, though people mistakenly if not unwittingly understand it as "socialized medicine" or "socialized health care"-- that creates the middle-class.
The free market will not, and cannot, create the middle-class absent institutions that deals with the fall-outs, flaws, and failings of a pure free market system.
Health care is not oil; it is not a commodity. The for profit health care system is a killing drain on our free market.
Health Care is a not a commodity -- it is a market of various goods and services. it is private property. It is not yours or any elite's to dispense with as you see fit.
Insuring everyone has affordable, accessible (receive walk-in attention; last-minute scheduling), and quality care is not "dispensing" with health care as anyone sees fit.
I respect, indeed truly admire, your principles regarding capitalism. I am a capitalist myself. Let's face it, however, what this health care model of subsidies, over-coverage, under-coverage, bureaucracy, and for-profit does: millions under-insured, millions without insurance, millions without the access they need, a tiny minority grossly over-insured (extremely profitable), a majority under-insured (profitably so), and no prevent care; there is no profit in preventive care.
Fishermage, as a person of reason, and this is not a joke, you are a person of reason, you KNOW --I believe, at least, that you do know-- this system will destroy and consume our free market system. And we do not even get what we pay for; it is the absolute worst return on investment. And my girlfriend is a lobbiest for the health care industry! And I own stock in a prominent pharmaceutical company, not to mention the free resorts I have received from the health care industry. This is serious. This is even serious on MMORPG. This is our health. Our life.
The only thing that is different between a liberal and a progressive is that liberalism is a belief system and progressives act-out and pursue liberal policies.
In a weird sense, however, since we are playing with semantics (here, the word "liberal")-- I am conservative. I want to strengthen and re-created pro-middle-class institutions. I want to expand health care coverage. I want to ensure quality health care, education, and so forth.
We need a new New Deal. We need universal health care.
You are "conservative," almost reactionary in the sense taht what you advocate was shown to be a failure in the 70s. You are advocating the same old deal -- more socialism, bit by bit -- maybe a whole lot now. Sill, nothing new. Old. tired, dead ideas. "Progressiviism has been shown to be a dead end. Leave it in the past.
We need a New Deal. We need to embrace free markets.
I do embrace free markets. I also embrace safety nets --such as socialized insurance, though people mistakenly if not unwittingly understand it as "socialized medicine" or "socialized health care"-- that creates the middle-class.
The free market will not, and cannot, create the middle-class absent institutions that deals with the fall-outs, flaws, and failings of a pure free market system.
Health care is not oil; it is not a commodity. The for profit health care system is a killing drain on our free market.
Health Care is a not a commodity -- it is a market of various goods and services. it is private property. It is not yours or any elite's to dispense with as you see fit.
Insuring everyone has affordable, accessible (receive walk-in attention; last-minute scheduling), and quality care is not "dispensing" with health care as anyone sees fit.
I respect, indeed truly admire, your principles regarding capitalism. I am a capitalist myself. Let's face it, however, what this health care model of subsidies, over-coverage, under-coverage, bureaucracy, and for-profit does: millions under-insured, millions without insurance, millions without the access they need, a tiny minority grossly over-insured (extremely profitable), a majority under-insured (profitably so), and no prevent care; there is no profit in preventive care.
Fishermage, as a person of reason, and this is not a joke, you are a person of reason, you KNOW --I believe, at least, that you do know-- this system will destroy and consume our free market system. And we do not even get what we pay for; it is the absolute worst return on investment. And my girlfriend is a lobbiest for the health care industry! And I own stock in a prominent pharmaceutical company, not to mention the free resorts I have received from the health care industry. This is serious. This is even serious on MMORPG. This is our health. Our life.
This socialist mess is a testament to the failure of socialism. More of the same is not the solution. Your solution has already failed. Tome to try a New Deal. Time to try freedom.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Even though this thread used to be about polls (lol), I will contribute to the health care talk. We already have bureaucrats getting between us and our doctors - the same profit driven Wall Street a-holes that have almost destroyed our country. I would rather take my chances with the bureaucrats that we, as a people, have elected.
All of this crap talk about "socialized medicine" is just that - it's crap. It's the big businesses who make billions a year who want you to believe that "socialized medicine" will be the downfall of our country's health. They have an agenda, and that agenda is money.
You know what is really funny? The advocates for our current bloated, expensive, and bureaucratic/corporate (they combined them with health care) model talk about hip replacements. They claim that, if we "socialized insurance" our elderly would not get hip replacements in a fast amount of time.
Well, MOST hip replacements are from the elderly, over 65, who are under medicare, a socialized insurance model.
Their own arguments prove the success of medicare, which (I hope) is obviously telling.
No, it's not "big business," It's not propoganda, it's simply a different way of viewing the purpose and nature of government in a free society. Socialism fails to deliver the goods.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yep it is very telling. And don't forget, our veterans have a form of socialized health care already. So I guess it's good enough for our brave soldiers who are injured or have some kind of mental trauma, but it's not good enough for the average citizen.
Veteran's Health Administration - good enough for soldiers, but not for ordinary citizens.
Yes, it IS propaganda. They are spending something like 1.5 million a dollars a day with those ads about how socialized medicine is the devil.
Yes, it IS propaganda. They are spending something like 1.5 million a dollars a day with those ads about how socialized medicine is the devil.
Oh really? I haven't seen thjose ads. I imagine you can show me some examples.
however, in terms of propoganda, the president himself has been up there for over a year saying free markets are the devil. He has been lying every night claiming he knows how to use government to CUT COSTS, something government has not been able to do in over ten thousand years,
I'll take the propaganda of freedom over Obama's socialism anyday.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yep it is very telling. And don't forget, our veterans have a form of socialized health care already. So I guess it's good enough for our brave soldiers who are injured or have some kind of mental trauma, but it's not good enough for the average citizen.
Veteran's Health Administration - good enough for soldiers, but not for ordinary citizens.
Yup -- and those are the most inefrficient, bloated, messed up parts of our health care system, and partially responsible for the rot throughout the system. You want the Veteran's syetsm for everyone. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, let alone my fellow citizens.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Excuse me for nosing in, but with Medicare going bankrupt in 10 years, that's telling it's a success story? Not only Medicare, but social security is in deep trouble also. Do we know how big of a burden this governmental healthcare is going to put on the nation as a whole? And if they can't fix Medicare/SS, how can they tell us this not-quite-universal healthcare is going to do better?
By the way, I agree healthcare needs a total reform. It's ridiculous right now, I'll be the first to say it. My g/f has a serious disease and requires lots of treatment, so I understand the need for healthcare for all. But they can not, must not, hurry through thousands of pages of a bill without reading it & understanding the consequences of it.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
A simple quiz:
Please specify a way that the free market can keep costs low and expand coverage. If you disagree that costs need to be reduced and coverage needs to be expanded, just say so.
A simple quiz:
Please specify a way that the free market can keep costs low and expand coverage. If you disagree that costs need to be reduced and coverage needs to be expanded, just say so.
There is no way to keep costs low and expand coverage. The question is which will do the best job of providing the best service at the lowest possible cost. That's the free market, every time.
If you want to help people, help them. Don't shove socialism down everyone's throat. IT will raise costs, lessen coverage, and in the end destroy incentive throughout the whole system.
fishermage.blogspot.com