OT: We the people?

Page 3 of 8  
Garage_Woodworks wrote:

What, you mean "if somebody blows up the World Trade Center I'm going to for God's sake do something, even if it's the wrong thing"?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

... and what was wrong with the actions taken to bring down those governments that support and promote terrorism? After all, appeasement has worked so well in the past -- look what an impression Carter's appeasement policies had on the Iranians.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is really bothersome to me. Reminiscent of a recent Rep debate when the candidates were all asked " was the war in Iraq a good idea worth the cost in blood and treasure we have spent?"
ALL (with the exception of the only sane republican candidate, Ron Paul) thought invading Iraq was the right decision. Very sad indeed.
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/us/politics/24text-debate.html?_r=1&pagewanted &bl&eiP87&en d7bd56323e1b26&ex01582800&oref=slogin
or
http://tinyurl.com/ypu5mo
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup. MUCH better to sell them arms, eh?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's not a lot of detail to isolationism. It is a great policy for people who have nothing of value to offer on the subject.

Nothing.
Had we done more of that, and not invaded Iraq, we might be better off today.

Unlike Reagan, he did nothing to appease them.
--

FF




Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Your revisionism is so funny it is laughable. So you don't think a letter to the Ayatollah, begging him, as a man of faith, to release the hostages and essentially pledging not to do anything from a position of strength was not appeasement and did nothing to prolong the hostage issue nor embolden the Iranians? The Reagan arms deals had at least a minimum of quid pro quo attached.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Was that 'unchristian' of Carter? He went with his beliefs. The Christian schooling I received in The Netherlands, including High School, taught me a lot about what Christianity stood for. And if I were to be so bold as to stand Bush beside Carter and compare notes on what *I* was taught (and still hold as true) as 'closer' to Christ's teachings, I think you know where those conclusions would lead to. Your man Bush wouldn't do so well. I'd much rather break bread with the likes of Carter and Huckabee...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

:Was that 'unchristian' of Carter? He went with his beliefs. :The Christian schooling I received in The Netherlands, including High :School, taught me a lot about what Christianity stood for. :And if I were to be so bold as to stand Bush beside Carter and compare :notes on what *I* was taught (and still hold as true) as 'closer' to :Christ's teachings, I think you know where those conclusions would :lead to. :Your man Bush wouldn't do so well. I'd much rather break bread with :the likes of Carter and Huckabee...
Well said. It's funny how non-Christian the Christian right really are. From no-health care to tax-cuts for the wealthy to war mongering, the list goes on and on.
interesting article: http://www.alternet.org/story/18378 /
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Garage_Woodworks wrote:

Let's hit these one at at time, shall we?
No health care? Has the Christian right ever said that you shouldn't get health care? Nope, didn't think so. On the other hand, the idea that the government should make me (or one of your neighbors) involuntarily pay for your health care is a distinctly non-Christian and frankly unethical idea. It's not charity when you are using someone else's money, and Washington is using other peoples' money.
Tax cuts for the wealthy? This is a very tired and silly canard. First, if you aren't paying taxes, then any tax cut is going to help someone other than yourself. It isn't going to hurt you (after all, you aren't paying taxes). Second, if you are paying taxes, you are getting exactly the same tax break as the "wealthy"; your taxes are going down the same percentage amount. Finally, if you are "wealthy", you are paying the largest share of taxes just by nature of the way the system is already skewed. The top 25% of taxpayers are paying 86% of all federal income taxes. Of course they are going to get more benefit from a tax cut -- THEY PAY MORE @#$%'n TAXES TO BEGIN WITH!. Just to point out that the "wealthy" apparently didn't do as well as you think with this taxcut for the wealthy BS: In 2000, the top 25% of taxpayers were only paying 84% of all federal income taxes in 2000. Same with the rest of the so-called wealthy category, the top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes, the top 1% pay 39%, up from 37% in 2000. So much for them benefiting disproportionately.
War mongering? You've got a group of people saying they want to kill or convert you, so by attacking that group, *we* are the one's warmongering? Yeah, OK.
Christian charity? That is one thing -- it's not charity when it is done with the force of government. The whole idea of redistributing wealth is disturbing. What's more disturbing is the fact that many people hold that it is not only a good thing, but it is their entitlement to do so and to vote in the people who will make this happen. That's neither Christian, nor ethical, it's just a band of passive thugs voting in people who will do their robbery for them.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 3, 10:44 pm, tough guy or gal Mark or Juanita

No, AFAIK you're happy to see anyone get all the health care they can afford.

Well how about if we ask each voter what percentage of his tax money go for health care and let that be the budget? Or instead we could just elect representatives to represent our views on the subject. We might call them Congressmen, for instance.
...

You mean like when the group that not only threatens us but also actually attacked us in in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and go and then invade Iraq, a country where the only thing resembling al Queda was a small band in Kurdistan that was implicated in attacks on the regime of Saddam Hussein?
Yes, that's war mongery.

As opposed to voting in a band of thugs that will plunge another nation into a civil war that kills hundreds of thousands of their innocent citizens? I suggest that 'robbery' by taxation is at worst, the lesser sin.
--
FF

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bush's prescription drug plan filled a real need.....The U.S. has lots of health care, people are not dying in the streets...anybody that needs it can get it and currently anyone whom can't truly afford it will receive it. Which current health care proposal actually fills any real need? The true problem is runaway costs, any mandatory plan currently proposed by the Dems (user pays incidentally) will do nothing for cost escalation.
>to tax-cuts for the wealthy
That 3% cut was really a giant giveaway($50 billion a year out of a $2-3 trillion a year budget)....why was the then 37% top rate the magic or correct number? why not 30% or 40% or 50% or heck 100%?

Yes it always better to ignore the despots of the world.....long term it has always worked out. In fact I suppose the Iraq embargoes should have been canceled and the 50,000 troops containing Saddam should have been brought home as well. Not to mention overthrowing the Taliban was largely a waste. After all how many building would they have really toppled if we had just ignored al-Qaida as was Clinton's policy.
the list

and political views.....Oddly his abortion views would make him a very good Nazi, it is morally wrong but okay anyway. Sadly he was a disappointing President albeit largely ineffectual and has largely as well been a disappointing ex President although I really respect his habitat for humanity promotion.....Rod
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

Not really. Only those that can afford it can get it. Those that can't afford it...well...they take other measures sometimes:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id485812

Mine fills my need. I get to see a dr when I want and my copay for meds is ok.

NO, the "true" problem for the millions of Americans is NO health care coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Are you one of those Iraq was connected to 911 dudes?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's be fair. Health care is available to anyone who cares to spend the money. Not so in the socialized countries, where you can get ripped for going outside the national plan and treating on an as-needed (and paid), rather than as-allowed and when-allowed basis. Even our mini-version, medicare, doesn't accept an MD decision over a bureaucratic DRG allowance.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When you stick in "who cares to spend the money" your argument falls on the stable floor. How about, "who has to choose between feeding the kids and spending money on health care"?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, right. Ever read the notice on the wall in the ED? You're entitled to life-saving care regardless.
Next time you're in line paying bucks for burger and see the food-stamper swipe her card for T-bones, think about it. Oh yes, they pay for the smokes and beer with cash. Not sure what their kids drink or smoke. Galloping polypharmacy among the elderly where eight prescriptions have eight physicians' names on them show you it happens with medical care, too.
DUMB analogy.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cute......If you think that story is truly about what the guy could afford I have a bridge to sell you.......Nor does it have anything to do with Bush's drug plan.

Of which every citizen already has the same ability.....
Incidentally 8 years ago I was diagnosed with a very rare disorder(no cure) I had expensive diagnostics and life saving surgery and I face a lifetime of required medications for control.....while I was self employed I indeed had a medical plan( by choice)......Subsequently I have not been able to run the small biz(closed) and the wife is now our "breadwinner".......If I had been so foolish not to have a medical plan I would have received the same medical treatment......obviously I would have been saddled with debt as I should for foolish choices.....at certain medical costs and income points Medicaid would fill the gaps. The problem is not availability but the cost......mandatory national medical coverage as proposed does not address costs.

Well golly I'm now convinced in spite of your rather unconvincing argument......there are several basic reasons why someone doesn't have a health plan.....
a. They simply prefer to pay out of pocket as need arises.
b. They are too cheap to pay for a rather expensive service
c. They can't afford a rather expensive service
d. They do not perceive a need for a rather expensive service
Just a hunch but price does seem to matter in our purchase choices.
Historically the country has never had 100% of the public enrolled in some sort of medical insurance, since the poor and anyone with a serious illness can and will receive any and all needed care, why other than your politician of choice has "told you so" is the issue important?.......Now if we have serious efforts at controlling costs via competition and increased supply any of the above might just take care of themselves.

Other than ignoring my query I don't see how that link demonstrated much of anything other than my position, if I may quote it
"The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office."

was nothing in my paragraph linking the two. Saddam's history, his future goals, his crimes against humanity and/or his own people, his previous expansion wars against his neighbors, his clear violation of the cease-fire agreement, his violation of multiple UN security council resolutions and even his fiscal support for Palestinian suicide bombers, clearly build a reasonable case that his removal was in the worlds best long term interest. The only valid issue is whether the cost in both blood and treasure is worth the price to the U.S.......Nonetheless the actual cost to remove him was affordable.... it is the effort to establish a Iraq democracy and allow enough time to build the basic social infrastructure, to allow self determination in a area without such a history, that has proven expensive. Rod
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are omitting (on purpose I presume) what may be the single most common reason.
e. After paying for rent and food, hey don't have enough left to pay the premiums for health care.
Some single non-custodial parents don't even have enough for rent and food after child support is deducted. My next-door neighbor who was employed full time had $10/month left in his paycheck after taxes and child supprt.
Isn't Walmart the largest employer in the US? Isn't it the case that Walmart does not offer a health care plan to its workers?
--
FF

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What do you think C was?

There is no question bottom tier income groups cannot afford(without help) medical care nor even child support<G>.....In 1976 a west coast HMO cost $25.00 per month for a single person with $2.00 co-pays, today the same coverage would be closer to $400 with $20 co-pays.....the medical affordably problem in this country is entirely medical inflation, of which has little in common with normal inflation. Sadly this inflation has been driven by greed, 3rd party payees and certain standards we expect (new shiny medical buildings, staffing levels, paper work, liability etc.). In fact under expected market forces with modern (post 1980's) imaging , drugs and specific procedures medical costs probably should have declined or at least leveled.

Not true at all.... One cannot believe much of the anti-Walmart propaganda.......Rod
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Evasion.
The absence of affordable alternatives was neither stated nor implied.

The costs of many drugs and most imaging methods have dropped.

Indeed, IMTS _private_ employer.

If the largest private employer in the US in not Walmart, then whom?
And what do we know about their health care plan?
--
FF






Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is just plain silly.... what part of "can't afford" didn't you understand? Affordable alternatives, your kidding right?
"c. They can't afford a rather expensive service"

And yet per capita medical costs rise by roughly 10% or more yearly

Largest employer is not in dispute nor is it propaganda nor in this context is it particularly relevant

That they have one!!!!!!! and that you claimed that they did not.....Your confusion probably comes from those normally complaining about Walmart, in their ignorance they do not seem aware that an employer can't afford the entire cost of a $400 medical plan for part time employees....and that many part time employees want to be part time employees....and that Walmart has many many thousands of full time employees. Also that by tradition and need routine retail jobs across the entire industry(all employers) tend to be fairly low paid, have few benefits and have lots of part timers including students, teens, housewives etc..... Rod
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.