Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

DaretothREdux (42.54)

I Am So PI$$ED that Even I Can’t Joke

Recs

44

January 29, 2009 – Comments (78) | RELATED TICKERS: STEM , UL , ATE

I try to be funny in my blogs, and I try to be relevant. My theory is that I will reach more people if I don’t simply rant, but instead, prove my point with a humorous story or at least a sprinkling of witty one-liners (I hope they are witty). Because I honestly don’t know how funny I am, and I doubt anyone really does. In the world of humor you are only as good as your last joke. 

 

I occasionally get praise from my groupies and I occasionally get arguments and dissent. I welcome both with open arms. The praise though is something I can live without. The truths that I promote are not.

 

My desire is both to learn and to teach people on CAPS and TMF about the freedoms they are quickly relinquishing without a fight. I preach about the dangers of too much government most days, but often it is masked in a “Steven Colbert”-type character’s language. Most people can easily see my true intentions and beliefs, even when I am being sarcastic, but today, I do not wish to take that chance.

 

In fact, I am too angry to even jest right. Instead, I must be deadly serious because I believe what I am about to tell you is a matter of life and death. In fact, life without freedom is worse than death. So, please listen carefully to what I am about to tell you.

 

Today, in the spirit of bipartisanship every single House Republican (EVERY SINGLE ONE) and 11 house democrats voted against the non-“Stimulus” bill, a.k.a The Obama-Pelosi Plan to Destroy this Country. Here is a sprinkling of the proposed “stimulus:” 

 

$1 billion for Amtrak

$2 billion for child-care subsidies

$50 million for the NEA

$400 million for global-warming research

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects

$81 billion for Medicaid

$7.5 billion for Public Housing

$1 billion for nutrition programs

$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax

 

There is more. The list goes on and on and only about 5% of the entire bill has anything to do with immediate “job creation” and “infrastructure projects.” The Senate will likely add more pet projects and bring the total to over $900 Billion. 90% of it is counter-productive and will destroy rather than create wealth.

 

Everything that has been on the “democratic agenda” for the last 40 years can be found somewhere in this bill. We are being exploited. You and I, the taxpayer, are being forced to fund billions of dollars worth of projects with which I vehemently disagree. Maybe you think all these projects are good, and if you do that’s fine. But don’t lie to me and tell me that this will create jobs and economic growth. If you want to live through The Greatest Depression in history just so that we can spread out the wealth, then be aware of the consequences. 

 

Do you know what I could do with $400 million dollars (the amount given to “research” on a total lie)? I will give you one example (there are thousands) and I welcome everyone to give their own example in the comments of the jobs and economic growth they could personally create.

 

I would make four blockbuster movies! Doing so would employ thousands of people. Not to mention I would have something of value once I was done, a movie, which I could market and sell to millions of people (four movies in fact). I could take the profits from those films and make more movies! Thus creating economic growth immediately and continuously. 

 

Both immediacy and continuity are extremely important. We need jobs created now, and we need to continue to growth the economy. Some of these government projects will create temporary jobs but not economic growth. We are simply throwing money into a black hole of nothingness (don’t forget it’s your money). Many of these other projects will not even create temporary jobs, but will simply fall into the pit of government waste. Medicaid anyone? How about Medicaid for everyone? Don’t worry that’s coming later in the year.

 

Sure “$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax” will help some very poor people through the rough times we are currently experiencing, but the majority of that money will go to paying off credit cards and buying only the basic necessities. Neither of which will create growth.

 

The taxpayer is being stolen from and lied to. You are being stolen from and lied to. This is anything but “stimulus.” This will destroy our economy. We are going to double our budget and take on more debt than we have had since WWII. The long term effects of the path that we are currently on will be the annihilation of all economic freedom because debt is no different than shackles.

 

To show it another way: we are spending more on this bill than all of the Iraq War combined.

 

And Alstry is telling you to prepare for Deflation!

 

I don’t expect you to read the 647 pages of nonsense in its entirety, but I would urge you to skim through it or at least investigate further what lies within. 

 

And if you are as appalled as I am, then call your representative and thank/berate him/her for his/her vote. And then call your Senator and tell him/her that you will never vote for him/her again if he votes for this. If he doesn’t plan on voting for it, then tell him/her to grow some testicles and filibuster this piece of shite!

 

We were promised “change we could believe in,” and I see lots of “change” but I refuse to believe in fasciso-socialism and straddling our country with so much debt (on so much stupid stuff) that we will never recover.  

 

Good Luck America cause we will need it,

Dare

78 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 29, 2009 at 2:42 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

Another great article from the WSJ that talks about the steps that are now being taken through the "stimucrap" bill to universalize and raise the cost of healthcare.

I hope everyone is ready to have their taxes raised dramatically to pay for all this...because the other option is our country declares bankruptcy or prints us into hyperflation.

Report this comment
#2) On January 29, 2009 at 2:45 AM, kaskoosek (56.96) wrote:

Every sucker holding dollars is funding this plan. 

The deflation argument should be thrown down the toilet right about now.

Report this comment
#3) On January 29, 2009 at 3:03 AM, whereaminow (21.29) wrote:

Dare you beat me to it. Good post! However, I hope to post something later today from a Libertarian and Human Action perspective that maybe a few people will be interested in. I think America would improve immediately if 3rd Party candidates were considered more than just a "wasted vote."

If you vote for the lessor of two evils, you are still voting for evil. Today's absurd world is your reward for such illogic.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#4) On January 29, 2009 at 3:08 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

kaskoosek,

No doubt.

whereaminow,

I voted Libertarian (or Ron Paul) in both presidental elections where I was able to vote. And when you get that write-up finished later today feel free to link it in my blog.

Report this comment
#5) On January 29, 2009 at 3:58 AM, SuperPicks (29.03) wrote:

Dare, i also did a write in.

good post.

Report this comment
#6) On January 29, 2009 at 4:49 AM, letitgrow100 (79.61) wrote:

This problem we find ourself in is not a good one. I ask how did we get here? We cant solve problems using the same thinking that got us into it. I hear alot of people complaining but giving no ideas. No ways to make things better. There are do-ers...and there are those who like to sit on the sidelines and yell. Who will you be? So complain if you wish...but that is not going to fix anything.

Although i must admit in certain cases it does...like when a business takes handouts from the gov't that they dont need and waste it and the people complain about it. Then they give up the private jet or payback the money for the renovation. But still keep their bonus of course.  . CEO's...well, that's a whole other story. But these same business's cry fowl when they take hand-out's from the govt , but then say the gov't is too involved...Then put your hand back in your pocket. There's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole....now that times are tough...we see what our leaders are really made of. And big business..your not doing so well....

Report this comment
#7) On January 29, 2009 at 4:58 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

letitgrow100,

You seem to be kinda on the fence. You say "complaining" doesn't work but it does work sometimes. I am calling for action as well though. I told people to call their Representatives and Senators and demand they not pass this garbage of a "fake stimulus." That and waking up to the fact that government is the problem and not the solution would be a great start to fixing our problems as a country.

But you have to drink milk before you can eat meat. If you want my other solutions all you have to do is read more of my blogs. It is pretty clear that I believe less government spending (signifigantly less) and a complete and utter cut of the income and corporate taxes would go a long way to stimulating our economy.

But what does our government do? They drink more of the poison that got us sick. One of these days it's going to kill us.

Oh, and whether you agree or disagree with me thanks as always for the comments and recs!

Report this comment
#8) On January 29, 2009 at 5:27 AM, letitgrow100 (79.61) wrote:

Thank you for the reply. I'm always interested to hear others ideas and offer my own. Govt is always going to be govt, and bussiness is always going to be bussiness. Maybe i'm too optimistic. I want to see CEO's that are down to earth, in touch with reality and do whats best for there company. I want them to feel as if they have a stake in the company. Not, oh well i jacked up...but at least i got paid. I want the samething from govt' and i think both can be different, but can do all the things we want them to. My complaining comment was meant to be sarcastic. Maybe i'm crazy but i think that the govt can do amazing things if done for the right reason. The resources that they have tremendous.  And aren't they suppose to do what the "people" want. i dont know...but thank you for your post.

Report this comment
#9) On January 29, 2009 at 5:36 AM, ChrisHastings131 (< 20) wrote:

right on amigo!

Report this comment
#10) On January 29, 2009 at 5:38 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

letitgrow100,

The gov't is supposed to do what the "people want" only if it's constitutinal and in the best interest of the country. In other words everyone might want Ice Cream to be free (I know I would), but the government can't vote that into law because it wouldn't be contitutional to destroy a private industry.

And you should never forget that all the resources the government has have been stolen from the taxpayers. The government without us is able to do nothing. Personally, I think they should err on the side of "nothing," but it seems the nature of gov't is to err towards the side of "too much." That's why they spend more money than they have (your money) and someday we will have to pay it back, either through inflation or taxes, and I don't want either.

Report this comment
#11) On January 29, 2009 at 8:03 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

ChrisHastings131,

Thanks. I just hope it's doesn't become "right on comrade!" in the near future...

Report this comment
#12) On January 29, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Italyssun (< 20) wrote:

Dare, Good article

However we do need to take care of the children in better ways and the elderly medicare. In the long run these will make America a stronger country in all realms. And they will help people to grow to love this country more. As for the rest, like you say I think we could do without or find more cheaper and logical ways of doing things.

 

Report this comment
#13) On January 29, 2009 at 8:48 AM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

We all called our legislators to urge them to vote against giving money with no strings to the exact same people who started this mess, but they still wound up with a few hundred billion of our money.  It's how the system works.  

Report this comment
#14) On January 29, 2009 at 8:48 AM, russiangambit (29.23) wrote:

The problem I see with the federal government that it might have good intentions but it is the people on the local lelve can either implement those ideas or not, all federal government can do is distribute the money. And as I look at our local level politicians, I am not encouraged.

Let's take nutrition programs. So much of the population is over-weight, we need to do something. But you cannot force people to excercise or eat right.  Is this money then will be spent on inventing food that make you slimmer as you eat it?

I suppose you could  "force "(through tax easing) each company with more than 1000 employees have  a gym and provide some sort of reward/ credit to people who excercise. Or provide credit towards paying for gym membership. I know many companies already do that out of their own will to cut down on healthcare costs. But even so, it is usually healthy people who take advantage of these programs. As they say, you can lead horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

By looking at the list, I think they are targeting the right areas that were ignored for a long time ( healthcare, child care, energy, poor people)  but it is still going to be just throwing the money at the problem until people themselves are willing to do something about them. 

At least, from my observation , which is incomplete I am sure, poor people  usually have low motivation from all the knocks the life dealt them. It is the cycle of poverty. How you break it, I don't know. The only time it works if they have a leader, a role model who can show the way. So, we are back to the role of the individual vs. that of the government.

Report this comment
#15) On January 29, 2009 at 8:50 AM, XMFSinchiruna (27.75) wrote:

Nice post, Dare,

I don't often find enough time to keep up with everyone's blogs, but now I see I should be making a point to find yours.

You are, of course, spot on with this and its link to the issue of freedom. Poverty is a form of subjugation and marginalization, and I would agree - without having delved into the document yet -- that it appears to be a complete farse of a "stimulus" plan.

I wrote someone in on my ballot as well. :)

I had the great pleasure of being in Washington DC on the eve of the TARP vote last Fall, and I joined in a small but vocal group of protestors expressing their outrage over the TARP funds on the lawn of the Capitol building. For several hours, I was given the mic to get the message out to passers by... which was highly therapeutic. It felt great to get it off my chest, but also to be a part of an actual grassroots effort to stand up and say: NO!

Hopefully, people will begin to wake up. Apathy and ignorance abound, but there's nothing like a Depression to give people a wake-up call. Here's hoping everyone wakes up in time to keep out banks out of government hands and our freedoms intact.

Thanks for the post.

 

Report this comment
#16) On January 29, 2009 at 8:55 AM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

I am pissed off too.

You tell Republican spokesperson John Boehner that in 19 months I am taking ten thousand of my dollars and 4 weeks vacation and I am going to target whatever Republican Senators look most vulnerable. You tell him my target is any vulnerable Republican that voted yes to TARP and no to this bill.

I fully support President Obama's efforts, I value the National Parks, I voted for Universal Healthcare, and I approve of helping everyone who has lost a job during this downturn and I don't care if it is called "stimulus" or "soup kitchens".

My efforts will be directed toward eradicating the scourge commonly known as Conservatism from my Country. I will recognize it by what it says and what it does. I will not let it be "rebranded" as Libertarianism to be followed by apologies later.

Report this comment
#17) On January 29, 2009 at 9:03 AM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

Regardless of your political beliefs, this is a terrible stimulus bill.  I think we get too caught up in blaming Democrats or Republicans for these kinds of things.  It's the political system that sucks.  We just have taught people how to optimize it.

Report this comment
#18) On January 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM, amassafortune (29.41) wrote:

Now NEA President Van Roekel can afford that cancelled Citigroup jet and take us all to oblivion even faster.

Report this comment
#19) On January 29, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Mary953 (73.43) wrote:

Dare - I cannot really call and berate my Congressmen.  They voted, as a block, against the stimulus.  They also voted against the bail-outs.  Same goes for our Senators.  The best we can do at the moment is prepare for the mid-term elections and make our voices heard then - in a very BIG way!  And keep letting our representatives know how we feel until then!

NEA - Can you interpret this for me? The only NEA I can think of is the Natl Education Association.  The teacher's union.  Surely they have not voted money to a union.

Based on what you have written here, I am ready to apply for my own grant.  I want to study the reasons that the unicorns missed Noah's Ark!  It makes as much sense as greenhouse gases. 

As to what I would do with the sum of money listed above, I would find medium sized companies that have a good product which they are creating (factories in the US) and I would apply the money as venture capital to allow a select group of companies to expand their operations, thus employing more people to create more products for which there was a ready market.  More jobs, more products, investments!

My own anger is expressed at the continued nationalization of our country's industries.... http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=136323&t=01007737217973478225 .

 

Report this comment
#20) On January 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

Italyssun,

I personally believe and this is by no means guaranteed that private charity could pick up the slack where medicaid fails (after all most hospitals used to by "charity run" before the government got involved), and since I work at a hospital I see and know about the inefficency of medicade every single day.

Everyone else thank you for the comments and recs and I will respond to you in due time. I feel that this time I should comment one at a time so I can keep my thoughts clear and possibly productive.

Report this comment
#21) On January 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

Mary953,

Read that blog of yours and reced it (wish I could do it twice) but of course feel free to link your blogs in mine anytime ;)

I will respond to the rest of your statement in due time but to answer your one question the NEA is the Natl Endowment for the Arts...the gov't program that funds one of my major (Theatre) and yet I am still against funding it...have to stand on priciple.

Report this comment
#22) On January 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM, wrparks (67.53) wrote:

Devoish,

 What you want to do in eradicating a way of though is bad for the country and for the world.  This country was made great by the establisment of an opposing party system.  As Joseph J. Ellis demonstrated in some book (don't remember which, maybe american creation?), the US was one of the first nations to institutionalize debate.  It is a national pasttime to disagree and argue, and we are better for it because it forces compromise.

We have seen what happens when republicans have total control - wasteful spending.  Unfortunately, it's the same thing that happens when democrats have total control.  Clinton was a success because he had no choice but compromise.  Reagan was largely the same.

 The bigger issue is the Keynesian mode of though of the Obama administration.  In the 80s, republicans said deficits don't matter.  Now, democrats are saying the same thing.  The whole goal of this stimulus package is to prop up the house of cards that is the US economy, using debt, until a foundation develops.  This may work, if the nation had an actual budget surplus (no, the clinton surplus was not real, it was a bubble surplus that didn't exist).  But, when anation is already in debt, and then takes on debt that is ~1/13th of the 2008 US GDP?......that makes us screwed.  The only way this will be paid off is by currency devaluation, and that's bad for all of us.  It IS a hidden tax.

Report this comment
#23) On January 29, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Gemini846 (57.56) wrote:

Sure “$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax” will help some very poor people through the rough times we are currently experiencing, but the majority of that money will go to paying off credit cards and buying only the basic necessities. Neither of which will create growth.

The only reason they have to pay off the credit cards is because the banks canceled them. That RAL they got to claim the EIC and the check cashing place that got 30% of it sure lined someone's pocket. Don't blame them honestly. My wife works with a woman who is getting WIC so they can use thier tax credits to buy a 52" tv w/ a premium cable package. (Er pay it off they bought it last year). Whether or not that creates growth by keeping the guy at walmart making $8/hr employeed I don't know since the TV was made in China somewhere.

devoish

I do agree that Pubs that voted for the TARP and stood against this calling it pork are two faced hypocrits. The only one of those I have is retiring in 2 years so I don't have to vote him out.

 Don't go calling libertarians conservatives. Many of us who would claim to be libertarians have socially conservative viewpoints but have no desire to "inflict" our social issues on the rest of America as long as America keeps out of our wallets. No taxation w/out representation imo. When the cronies in DC don't do what the people want then frankly we don't have representation no matter if we vote or not.

Universal healthcare hasn't really worked for any country in the world without excessive taxation. You can argue that they have longer lifespan and lower infant mortality than the US but they also don't have the flood of imigrants that we do. I don't ever hear about refugees flooding to sweeden on rafts. The poorest citizens already HAVE universal healthcare via medicare and medicaid and it hasn't increased their survival rates one bit.

I read a great article yesterday about 5 small business owners who were providing real services on the private market to truely bring down the cost of healthcare and increase availiblilty. Now it won't be long before the big insurance companies either try to buy them or try to squeeze them out with thier pre-paid congressmen (who are mostly democrats thanks to Hillary pushing thier agenda now).

Report this comment
#24) On January 29, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Mary953 (73.43) wrote:

Eight years ago, our governor chose to enact a special healthcare, a sort of Super-Medicaid, as his legacy to our state.  We had been fine without an income tax for over 200 years until then.  The last eight years have been a tremendous struggle.  Universal healthcare does not mean you can go get your broken arm fixed or have your baby at the hospital and the government will take care of it.  It means that everyone's catastrophic illness, from cancer to heart transplant to AIDS, to the premature baby that talllies up over a million dollars in medical costs before he goes home comes out of your pocket! 

YOU WILL PAY MORE IN MEDICAL COSTS UNDER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!! 

The young employed will not only pay Social Security for the retired.  They will be paying the medical bills for the retired as well.  Consider the nursing homes.  The healthy will be paying for those as well.  Think very carefully before you sign on for this.  Those of you that are chronically ill, tour a vet hospital to see the care under government standard.  I honestly do not have any idea of the care level.  I imagine it varies widely. 

DARE -

I cannot support the idea of funding NPR, Public Television, or other arts endowments.  Public TV as an example was created when we had 3 channels to watch.  We now have hundreds as well as the Internet.  Let them take a cut of the marketing for shows like Sesame Street or specials that they have created.  Put another way - now that there are other channels that fill the gap that public television ("If we don't do it, who will?") was created to fill, allow them to compete.  They have a head start of two decades worth of shows to release on CD or Blu-ray as a start. 

A TAX CUT AND AN INCREASE TO GOOD CAUSES

The idea of charitable giving is lovely and a nice sentiment, but there are so many lovely ideas to be funded and our government is not mandated to play Santa Claus with our money.  If I want to help fund something, I will do it and take the write off under charitable deductions on Sched A on my tax return.  If the government really wants to encourage this, the charitable giving can be moved to the front of the 1040 and set with the IRA and other adjustments to income.  Then whatever cash I give will come off of my taxable income, dollar for dollar, and I will be encouraged to give more.  Each person can choose those things that are most important to them.  The NEA will be important enough to many that they will get a good deal of money, but it will come from willing donors.

Report this comment
#25) On January 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Gemini846 (57.56) wrote:

To give you an idea about how strongly I feel that doctors that accept medicaid provide substandard care (due to lines and overmedication if nothing else) We struck every doctor who accepted medicare/medicaid from our list of pediatrician choices. Sure it knocked out 80% of the list, but none of the doctors that had been recommended to me were on that list anyway.

Why bother to take my child to a doctor who is so busy with the welfare line that he throws us a script and says have a nice addiction. F that.

Report this comment
#26) On January 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

djemonk,

Thank you for calling your legislator, regardless of his/her action/inaction. And yes I agree this is not a democrat/republican problem it's a government problem. After all, it took both to pass the first "bailout bill."

Report this comment
#27) On January 29, 2009 at 11:14 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

russiangambit this statement is dead one the spot:

it is still going to be just throwing the money at the problem until people themselves are willing to do something about them

The trouble is people are less likely to "do anything" about such problems when the government takes over 40% of what they make (sometimes more) and they are trained to think that government is the solution to all ills...

Report this comment
#28) On January 29, 2009 at 11:17 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

TMFSinchiruna,

Thank you for your support. Having you as a regular reader would be an honor for me. I look to your blogs everytime I see them and though I may not always agree with you on everything, I agree entirely when it comes to protecting individual freedoms at any cost.

Report this comment
#29) On January 29, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Mary953 (73.43) wrote:

3 STEP PROGRAM TO CURING THE "GOVERNMENT WILL FIX IT" MENTALITY

1) Accept that everything you read, see, or hear is not true just because it is in print, on TV, on Internet, or on other media.

2) Realize that the government just adds an extra layer or two of waste to fixing any problem at the local level, another couple at the state, and even more at the national level.  You can do better with less money WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT WASTING YOUR MONEY.  And if the government gets involved, they Will waste more than they fix!

3) Your children will not learn the first two steps at school.  They will be encouraged to think that the government CAN fix things and SHOULD fix things; and they will start with the assumption that if it is in the media, it must be true.  Break the cycle. You are their parents!  You know better!  TEACH THEM THE TRUTH!!!

Report this comment
#30) On January 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM, philippalmer (74.66) wrote:

Wow...talk about being overwhelmed.  I don't even know where to start.  So I am not!

Report this comment
#31) On January 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM, givmeabreak (28.95) wrote:

Hey Devo:

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.  The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.  When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. 

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."  ~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers ~~  Report this comment
#32) On January 29, 2009 at 12:26 PM, blake303 (29.22) wrote:

I'm with Devoish. 

Gemini - Universal healthcare hasn't really worked for any country in the world without excessive taxation. You can argue that they have longer lifespan and lower infant mortality than the US but they also don't have the flood of imigrants that we do. I don't ever hear about refugees flooding to sweeden on rafts. The poorest citizens already HAVE universal healthcare via medicare and medicaid and it hasn't increased their survival rates one bit.

Mary - YOU WILL PAY MORE IN MEDICAL COSTS UNDER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!! 

So many fallacies. How about you provide some evidence to substantiate your claims? The US spends nearly twice as much on health care as other industrialized countries and ranks near the bottom in most metrics used to compare national health care systems. I like the French system, but many systems provide better and cheaper care. By the way, that article is from NPR. Do yourselves a favor and ignore whatever media outlet provided your bias against other national health care systems. Medicaid and Medicare are not universal healthcare.

I cannot support the idea of funding NPR, Public Television, or other arts endowments.  Public TV as an example was created when we had 3 channels to watch.  We now have hundreds as well as the Internet.

Cable sucks and the content is dumbed down to the extent that the lowest common denominator can grasp every concept. It promotes stupidity. I have 700 channels and nothing is on. The internet is full of misinformation, as the responses to this blog showcase nicely. We need non-partisan, non-corporate sources of news and entertainment. NPR and public television are a necessity.

Report this comment
#33) On January 29, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Mary953 (73.43) wrote:

Givmeabreak - If I could give you a rec for that statement, I would.  Istead I am putting you as a fav, because that is so very much a true philosophy.  A corollary - Money represents work done and time spent doing it.  In a real sense, money represents hours of your life that you cannot get back.

Dare - Political discussions make me semi- to mostly crazy.  I cannot change things.  I think I will take phillippalmer's very good advice.  Hang in there.

Report this comment
#34) On January 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM, SnoopyDancing (< 20) wrote:

givmeabreak has it down: 

Why work? Seems like you're working for everybody else and mile-long lists of handouts, not yourself. Your "take-home" pay is taxed for gas that pays for few roads, communications for schools that you already pay property taxes to support, energy programs for low-income folks (buried in the mandatory invoice amount each month), all services that you can't do yourself because you're working 60-80 hours a week are taxed...50% taxes? 60%? 75%? What is the compounded cost of double-taxation?

$10.7T debt as of 1/7/09, if I remember correctly. Only half of roughly 300M people pay taxes...less if unemployments stays high. A rough calc results in each taxpayer's share of the national debt is $71,333. That's a mortgage on a small fix-er-upper in the midwest. At roughly 3% for Treasury yields (and going up if the country is functionally bankrupt) $2,140 of your paycheck goes to service the debt -- a big chunk of which relates to trade deficit from oil and the oil wars. 

If we quit sending money to hostile countries, yes, India and China might continue to buy oil. But, I expect that our trillions could fund geo energy for homes using existing heating ducts and furnaces, leaving CNP (compressed natural gas) for cars--that are already being made, just not sold in any volume yet due to lack of pumps nationwide. Electric car batteries not ready yet? Fine. CNP is. When the technology would be more common, more developed, China & India would follow in a heartbeat.  Imagine no trade deficit!!! (sighhhh)

Why shouldn't we move our remaining assets offshore? Other than the supposed "shining star" of democracy--where our elected leaders ignore our wishes and bankrupt us and future generations with decades of wasteful spending--what's left here?

Dare, I'm with you on this...seeing the numbers is making this a really bad day! I'm going out to get some sun and delude myself that optimism is still warranted by imagining ways to force the government to outsource and BID virtually every governmental function to downsize.

Report this comment
#35) On January 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, OleDrippy (34.76) wrote:

I'm going John Galt... I can't wait for universal health care to kick in so I can quit my job, mow lawns for some tax-free cash, and leave the potential productivity of my seven years of education to rot.. I would rather waste it than have it wasted for me.

Anyone heading to Colorado?

Report this comment
#36) On January 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM, bostoncelitcs (44.25) wrote:

Ain't it a "bitch" buddy....Now you and the Mrs. are gonna have to eat macaroni and cheese instead of fine dining like the rest of us have been doing for over 2 years since the Dems took over Congress in 2006.......you're gonna have to get rid of the country-club membership and play on the "public courses"........and you're gonna have to trade in the BMW, and Mercedes for a Honda Civic!!!......Aint' it a bitch!!!.................Now go tell your Republican bedfellows who voted "No" on the stimulus......that you want to see "significant" troop reductions in Iraq and that money to go to "green jobs" right here in the US of effin A baby!!!

Report this comment
#37) On January 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

blake303,

Medicare and Medicaid may not be universal healthcare but they are in fact examples of government run healthcare and have driven health care costs through the roof. My finance and I both work in the health care industry and the nursing home she works at refuses both Medicare and Medicade. It's Catholic run and if people cannot afford they are taken in for free. The hassle of dealing with the government is so bad that they would rather take the loss in money than a loss in time and "procedure."

The hospital I work at takes both and day in and day out I hear everyone complain about how stupid it is...listen to the people who have to deal with "government run" healthcare for awhile and I promise you will be asking for the government to quit talking about the idea entirely.

Report this comment
#38) On January 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

bostoncelitcs,

I am a Libertarian...if you had read the comments you would know that. I want ALL our TROOPS HOME. All of them (all 130 countries), and the sooner the better. I agree the problem is too much spending...so why are the Dems suggesting that we spend more?

Oh, right...because now they get to decide how to waste our money.

Report this comment
#39) On January 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

OleDrippy,

Your humorous statement basically sums up the whole problem with government entitlement programs of any kind. They are doomed to fail due to human nature.

Report this comment
#40) On January 29, 2009 at 10:24 PM, quitsmoking (< 20) wrote:

Oh, right...because now they get to decide how to waste our money.

Boston: You nailed the power factor that corrupts both parties! And we pay the dues!

Report this comment
#41) On January 29, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Mary953 (73.43) wrote:

Dare, good to see you up and running.  Check out the blog I put up.  It is nothing more than a link to the latest from GoodVibe, but I think you will enjoy it. 

Comment #31 is so very on target.  And at the same time, blake and boston are so in the dark, and I have lived through so much more than they can even imagine, that their arguements just make me feel tired.  I'm just tired of arguing with , well,  with children.  You understand a great deal and that is a comfort, but the fact remains that if I had not gotten a couple of degrees and had a professional life before children, my grandchildren would be in college now.  I have watched and lived through the last time this country bankrupted itself with too much war and too many social programs that Had to be funded.  I have tightened my belt and saved my pennies to scrape through the correction.  I have seen the inflation and housing slow to a stop only to become a crushing burden with mortgages at 16% interest - yes 16%.  Been there, done that, watching it happen again.  I am tired of the arguements.  I know what's coming.  We will survive.  We always do. 

But I think I have had it with 'liberal' thinkers telling me that I am cold-hearted because I am not willing to hand over my retirement to Obama to play with. You worship him that much - give him your money and your future.  But leave me alone.  I am sick to death of Washington's take, take, take attitude. and the idea that I am ungrateful if I protest. 

Boston, I don't have the money for a Honda, a country club, or much of anything else.  I did give ole Uncle Sam enough to have bought a nice car last year.  Instead I will keep my 10 year old car and hope it has another year or two. 

Blake, you have no idea of what medical bills cost or you would have your proof already.  You are living in a dream world.  You will learn in a few decades.  Your name tells me all I need to know.  I can place your age fairly accurately by when Blake was a popular name for boys. Sit down with your grandparents and talk with them and Listen.  Pretend they know a thing or two.

Dare, you and others on this site give me hope that there is still some sanity left in this world.  There will need to be when we start to rebuild.  Have a good night.  Hopefully you will find the enjoyment in the evening to find some satire somewhere.

Report this comment
#42) On January 29, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Option1307 (29.70) wrote:

Excellent discussion here team. These topics need to be openly discussed and thought about before they get way out of control (although I believe they already are).

I agree with most here that this is not a one party problem, this is unfortunately a bipartisan affair. Therefore, we are all screwed unless we as a country all wake up quickly and demand accountability. Demand clarity. Demand Common freaking sense.

While I consider myself to be a libertarian/conservative of sorts (especially fiscally), and I disagree with the majority of the entitlement programs etc. out there, I don't understand the bickering going on about pro/con universal heathcare etc. That is not the point here, nor do I believe that was the original intent of DaretothREdux's post.

The point is that we are being lied too continuously by our government. They claim one thing, while they sneak around our backs and act in another way. They say we absolutely need "this" or "that", but then suddenly go forward with something completely and utterly different. What is that?

If you want to give lots of money to your buddies in the banking industry, I disagree, but at least tell me that upfront before you do it.

If you want to spend $825 (or whatever) Billion on pointless programs that you have been holding onto for the last 20-40 yrs, I don't like it nor the programs, but fine, tell me up front and go ahead.

Honestly, do politicians have no spine. Can they not admitt they are screwing us. Can they not admitt their true intentions. I wouldn't be nearly so pissed off if they would actually say the truth. Seriously. I don't agree with the majority of the programs, and I'd whine, but in the end it would be alright because at least they were honest.

This is so much worse because they are claiming we need this stimulus immediately; yet, this money is not touching the economy for 2+ yrs. WTF?

Obviously they have ulterior motives, we all know it, so I wish they'd quit screwing around and just tell me,

"Look dude, we want to blow a grip load of your cash on pretty new government cars that get a "green " 26 MPG and other awesome and totally "neccesary" items. Cool with that? Great. Btw, you, your kids, and your grandkids, etc etc will never ever be able to pay for all this so enjoy living in a cardboard box..."

Report this comment
#43) On January 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Option1307 (29.70) wrote:

On a side note, someone here should post a list of all the US Congressmen/woman and Representitives contact info, in the hope of encouraging more people to take a stand against this atrocity.

Hmm, maybe I'll do it if no one else cares to.

Report this comment
#44) On January 30, 2009 at 12:58 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

Option1307,

Your comment #43 hits my point to a T.

Also, since you suggested it. If anyone is looking for the contact information and the way their US Congressman/woman voted on any "bailout" or "stimulus" issue that can be found at

Campaignforliberty.com

I must warn people though so they don't think they are being manipulated it is a "old-school republican/libertarian" website started by Ron Paul, and the daily articles may enlighten your thinking so tread softly!

But even if you don't read the articles it is a good resource for contact information of you Senators/Representative and how they vote (so you know whether to be angry or happy depending on you lean).

I may start another blog to promote it later, but I think I am ready to laugh and try some satire again today.

Report this comment
#45) On January 30, 2009 at 2:00 AM, KokueiOTD (86.13) wrote:

Since a cursory glance through Campaignforliberty.com did not yield any contact info (admittedly, I didn't spend too much time searching), I just wanted to note that it's much easier to find the contact information of elected officials here:

Contact Elected Officials

Report this comment
#46) On January 30, 2009 at 3:00 AM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

Wrparks,

I do not want to eradicate a way of thought. Capitalist thinkers can think their capitalist thoughts all they want. I love capitalists. There is a place in the world for people whose goal in life is to collect as much of everything as they can. I don’t want them in Government and I don’t want to give them an army. Your ancestors made Priests take a vow of poverty before they would trust them. You’re getting advice from people who took a vow of “greed is good”. I think that is a knucklehead plan, and I swear I am laughing  as I write this. Good luck paying off your college debt. Who advised you that was a good idea? Who advised you to put all your retirement eggs into a 401k? The guy who sold you the stock that just crashed. No? Was it your banker? Google “excessive 401k fees” and let me know how much the right to have a tax advantaged 401k costs you. You pay fees to your banker for pushing paper, to avoid taxes to your Government for providing healthcare. If you think your plan is a good one keep voting for Republicans and a small helpless Government. I personally never trusted last year’s Conservatives who seem to want to rebrand themselves as tomorrows Libertarians. No disrespect to Ron Paul who is a Libertarian, but right now there are a lot of people saying the same things as yesterdays Conservatives while claiming to be today’s Libertarians. And yesterdays Conservatives are today’s “they weren’t real Conservatives were they.” Personally I am suspicious yesterdays Conservatives are just thieves trying to sneak back into Government positions as tomorrows Libertarians.

I also love these cute Keynesian, vs. Mises, vs. Friedman discussions.  I see things a little different than you all do. I was taught in school that once upon a time there was a thing called a great depression. Apparently without benefit or existence of horrible GSE’s or socialist entitlement programs, or vile unions,  a majority of people in finance began to celebrated excess and greed and caused financial disaster all across our Country. Strangely that is the part that is the same as today and to my overworked mind, therefore a more likely cause of today’s problems. Mary953 talks about teaching our children and this is what I am going to tell mine. In 1929 excessive borrowing by banks got them into trouble. Because of the trouble getting food that the banks caused, taxpayers organized themselves and decided they wanted the Government to promote the general welfare by creating a safety net so old people who could no longer work could rest without starving. So they created Social Security and immediately gave of their own money to support the Country’s elderly and weak. They also organized into unions to protect themselves from mean bosses and by 1940 30% of the Nations workers were unionized. The Government also created a Fannie Mae to provide loans to taxpayers because the bankers had lost all their own money just like today. In spite of all this Socialism we still managed to stay a Democracy. All these horrible programs of the 30’s did not destroy our Country in the thirty’s, or in the forty’s, or fifty’s or sixty’s or seventy’s. In fact by the end of the seventy’s taxpayers were so happy that they began to believe they no longer needed unions and in 1980 they elected a conservative Republican called Ronald Reagan to the Presidency of the USA. A few years later he fired the Air Traffic Controllers for striking and struck a devastating blow to unions everywhere, and then refused to demand environmental or living standards of our trading partners.  Only 15 years after that blow taxpayers found themselves with stagnant wages and being advised to borrow a little more and then a little more. Turns out it really is hard for an American manufacturer to be price competitive against Chinese company’s paying kids living in closets. Along the way in the Sixties some people decided they wanted a cut of Fannie Maes profits and convinced the Federal Government they could run a perfectly functional government agency better. The Government created Ginnie Mae to seperate the Federally Guaranteed loans from Fannie Mae whose loans would be low interest but not guaranteed. Fannie Mae’s new owners were given the opportunity to profit off of low interest loans if they met certain lending standards and they were very happy to do so until 2001/2 or thereabout.  The problem that Fannie Mae ran into in 2002 was that not enough people qualified for loans anymore because American dollars had spent a decade being invested in foreign countries and Americans were broke. Fannie’s problem was that other banks were not restricted to lending money to people who stood a likely chance of paying it back. Other banks could lend to people who could not pay the loans back by selling those loans to investors who could then suffer the losses. Other Investors wanted guarantees to buy these loans so the banks told the investors the Federal Gov’t would guarantee them because the loan money had come through Fannie Mae. Unfortunately the Federal Gov’t did not really guarantee any Fannie Mae loans and telling investors that they were guaranteed was a lie. Regardless these loans that would not get paid back were more valuable because they had a guarantee that did not exist. It even said on Fannie Maes website that loans from Fannie Mae were not federally guaranteed.  So they were lumped together and sold from bank A to bank B to Bank C with each bank profiting a small percentage off of each sale. Easy money and it is the roaring twentys and greed is good.  When the loans stopped getting paid back the investors got worried and when they found out the loans might not be guaranteed they got really worried. So Hank Paulson somehow acquired the authority to guarantee these loans and pass the risk onto taxpayers and make the lie ok. I think he did it because he had told that lie when he was working for Goldman Sachs. Investors were not happy because they realized most of the bad loans were not Fannies anyway and they were totally screwed.  Suddenly it is 1929 all over again and the plan is to turn Citibank and others  into a Government Sponsored Entity and give them $700 billion of taxpayer money. A plan proposed by the same conservatives who had just been telling me that GSE’s were the cause of the bad lending. Now you folks all seem to want to argue Keynesian this or Austrian that and it all seems very intelligent and over my head. To me today’s troubles are the simple result of thirty years of bad government policy sold to us under the guise of small government and tax cuts. I will recognize something different than these same failed policies because the solutions will have something other than tax cuts and small government as their goals. I see it in President Obama's proposals.

Givmeabreak,

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  No but the  wealthy can legislate the poor out of freedom while legislating freedom for themselves. You can see it happen outside your  window.

  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving

I work in a mechanics shop. One man in my shop works solid ten hour days. He is an ok mechanic. Good front-end guy, turns out a lot of work. Not really the most pleasant guy you’ll ever meet, but he’ll have your back and do not mistreat a dog in front of him. He is a person who works without receiving healthcare, or a 401k, or a pension. But he works. Or at least it looks like work while he’s pressing your ball joints into the control arms, and prying them back into place into your car. It seems like he ought to be able to afford doctor visits when his back flares up, but he cannot.  He buys painkillers from a guy who also sells heroin.  Looks like working without receiving to me. Seven men work in the shop. Two get healthcare from their wives, one from the VA. Four without.  

No half of the people expect something for nothing. That is more of the conservative BS that needs to end. I’ve seen these men pound their hand with a 2 and ½ lb sledge and keep working with broken bones because they cannot afford a day off or a doctor. These men work way to long and way to hard to be insulted by someone typing in front of a pc. They’re doing their “work”. You all drove to your jobs today. And they do deserve healthcare. “Entitled” I say.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. F’n brilliant. Here I have i have a quote for you. 

You cannot have a community without dividing wealth...Devoish

Report this comment
#47) On January 30, 2009 at 9:22 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

devoish,

I have a lot of respect for you, and your opinions but you are flat wrong. You most certainly can have a community without "dividing wealth"...but you must create wealth to do so. There isn't only so much to go around and that's all there is. Money can be made. The economy can grow. But the government CAN NOT grow the economy, espeically not through "entitlements."

Abe Lincoln said it best:

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

I don't need austrian economics to show you that people will always try to get the most for doing the least...it's human nature. If the government is giving it away, and I don't have to work for it, then I won't. That's how it is.

Health Care costs imo are a different point than this blog, but I will simply say that we already have government run healthcare and it sucks and it is inefficent and more exspensive than private healthcare.

For example, I have been seeing a lot of ads on T.V. recently promoting Socialized Medicine...guess who paid for the ads?

Big PHARMA and Big Government Sponser Healthcare a.k.a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Sheild (which gives healthcare to the majority of government employees). So? Why would those seemingly "private" companies want the government to socialize medicine?

It's because without competition (like when every senior has Medicaid) you can raise prices knowing that the government will foot the bill (and make no mistake you should read that the government will steal your money to foot the bill).

 

Report this comment
#48) On January 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM, blake303 (29.22) wrote:

DaretothREdux - Thank you for the response. I understand that healthcare was not the subject of this blog, nor was it my intent to take it that way. My point is that other governments provide universal coverage (and other social programs) at a fraction of what the US does. I included an article to back up my position. I am not a defender of Medicare, Medicaid, or US healthcare in general. Quite the opposite. Government run programs are not necessarily a bad thing, but our government has ruined the notion that this is a possibility. This not only applies to healthcare, but other industries. What I was attempting to get at is that models used by other nations show that a government is capable of running expensive social programs without bankrupting its citizens. I was not implying that the US is anywhere near that now, but I truly hope that we can move in that direction.

Mary953 -  blake and boston are so in the dark, and I have lived through so much more than they can even imagine, that their arguements just make me feel tired.  I'm just tired of arguing with , well,  with children. 

All that I was saying is that if you are going to make ridiculous claims as you have in this and previous posts, it would be nice if you supported them with evidence. I offered a counterargument supported by an article. I apologize for researching my position and presenting information in opposition to yours. If the enlightened feel that believing in something is all it takes to make their assertion true, then I will happily remain in the dark.

Blake, you have no idea of what medical bills cost or you would have your proof already.  You are living in a dream world.  You will learn in a few decades.  Your name tells me all I need to know.  I can place your age fairly accurately by when Blake was a popular name for boys. Sit down with your grandparents and talk with them and Listen.  Pretend they know a thing or two.

Oh Mary, Mary, Mary. Again - How about some evidence. You know nothing of me. I realize how expensive health care is. Did I say it was cheap? No, my point was that other nations are getting better results for ALL of their citizens at half of the cost. You can place my age from my name?  Wow!  Why pick stocks when you could be making so much money telling people about themselves at the carnival?  I hate to break it to you, but not all of us use the same firstname### formula. My first name is not Blake and my grandparents are dead. I am a boy though, so you won that coin toss. Pretending that you know a thing or two about me is frankly - a little childish. 

Report this comment
#49) On January 30, 2009 at 9:21 PM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

I have a lot of respect for you, and your opinions but you are flat wrong.

Thanks, but don’t follow my picks, I am still new at this game. But I’m not wrong.

You most certainly can have a community without "dividing wealth"...but you must create wealth to do so. There isn't only so much to go around and that's all there is. Money can be made. The economy can grow. But the government CANNOT grow the economy, espeically not through "entitlements."

So I take it that you are one who imagines that wealth can be created. Sorry, wealth cannot be created. It can be discovered, it can be unlocked, it can be moved, but it cannot be created. It is like energy.

Abe Lincoln said it best:

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

Nice words from Abe, but I think his commitment to those values would be sorely doubted by the Iroquois, Sioux, and Shawnee Nations.

I don't need Austrian economics to show you that people will always try to get the most for doing the least...it's human nature.

I will let you find your own examples of people who disprove that. Look in business for those driven to excel, in science for those driven to know, look for the creative mind which must search, the athlete who must be first. I have read many of your posts, I suspect you may find an example in the mirror. You write an awful lot for someone trying to do the least.

If the government is giving it away, and I don't have to work for it, then I won't. That's how it is.

Perhaps that is merely a lie. Told by cowards who hate, to the ones they fear. Repeated, learned, but mostly wrong.

Report this comment
#50) On January 31, 2009 at 1:33 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

devoish,

You used to do "the poop" on a daily basis and I was one of your readers when I first started on CAPS. You always got a rec from me because though I don't always agree with you, I appreciate your wit.

You said: "I will let you find your own examples of people who disprove that."

While I am sure that there are examples, I am not sure that those examples prove me wrong about human nature. Socialism has failed in the past for this very reason in fact. What makes you think that now is any different?

Have you heard of the exception that proves the rule? If human nature was in fact to excel and not simply to get by then there would be no need for welfare except in the most extreme cases. But if you start giving things away people get used to not working for them. If you don't believe me try sending a domesticated animal back into the wild and see how long it survives...

Report this comment
#51) On January 31, 2009 at 1:34 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

blake303,

Your point is well taken. Other countries do seem to do a better job than our system which continually loses money and drives up costs. We just agree the principles and have different solutions. I think we can both agree though that more government in healthcare is the worst possible "solution."

Report this comment
#52) On January 31, 2009 at 8:34 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

devoish,

So I take it that you are one who imagines that wealth can be created. Sorry, wealth cannot be created. It can be discovered, it can be unlocked, it can be moved, but it cannot be created. It is like energy.

Alright then, an example: I have some dirt and a seed. The seeds costs $.05 and the cost of the dirt is negilable because it's already paid for. I plant the seed and it grows into an orange tree. After tens years or so it bears fruit.

Is the fruit not worth more than the $.05 which I used in the planting?

Can I not turn a profit by selling this fruit? Or are you suggesting that I stole the fruit from the sun's energy? The light from the sun was just going to waste baking the dirt before. So have I not created more wealth than I previously had? In fact, it will probably take less than 1 year to pay for all ten previous years of no fruit and the $.05 seed, water, and all fertilizer costs (whatever you want to add in) has all been used to create wealth.

I can give you a billion other example of wealth "creation" and not simply wealth transfer or accidental discovery. And I will give you another if you can tell me how that isn't "created wealth."

Report this comment
#53) On January 31, 2009 at 12:10 PM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

Thanks for the nice words about the "Poop". It was a fun way to mock economic theory, and the news, and the Gov't. Unfortunately I became constipated and found myself forcing out new "Poop". I was out of new "poop" references, and nobody wants to keep seeing recycled crap.

You said: "I will let you find your own examples of people who disprove that."

While I am sure that there are examples, I am not sure that those examples prove me wrong about human nature

You originally said people "will always try to get the most for doing the least...it's human nature". One example removes "always" from the sentence, and once you start looking you will find many examples. Humans have many "natures". They come in a variety of shapes, colors, sizes and characters. Momma said "choose your friends carefully" and Momma was right.

Lets talk about your concept of "wealth creation", and your orange tree example.

 Remember that blueberry patch I told you about? Well I stopped there the other day to get some berries. I walk through the trees at the side of the road and find out some knucklehead mowed down all the bushes and planted an orange tree! No more blueberries.

The Wealth was transfered, not created. You have zero examples, not billions.

Speaking of "billions of examples", I noticed you agreed with blake303,s assertion that "Other countries do seem to do a better job (with healthcare) than our system" when he held up Gov't run systems as an example of "better". Then you said "I think we can both agree though that more government in healthcare is the worst possible "solution." " Which seems contradictory to me, and something I don't agree with and I don't believe blake303 agrees with either.  

Over a year ago I asked ctmedic for an example of a succesful "private" healthcare system and I am still waiting. Where is your example. I would like to know what a succesful "private" healthcare system looks like to you.

 

 

Report this comment
#54) On January 31, 2009 at 12:30 PM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

devoish,

Your example doesn't disprove that wealth was created. My point about the orange tree was that you can take things (worth little) and create wealth with with (make them worth lots more). Look at a computer. A processor is pretty useless without a motherboard and circuits and a hard drive, etc.

The point is that the sum becomes worth more than the parts. That's wealth creation in it's simpliest form. Your point is that it takes wealth (starting capital) to create more wealth (finished product), and with that I don't disagree.

 

As to healthcare (here we go again...) the US already has "state sponsored healthcare" via Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Social Security and any number of other things that let the government have control over the price and quality of healthcare. If there markets were completely free, then the price would be determine by the people and the best product would be worth the most. Medicaid and Medicare lose Trillions of Dollars. Yes TRILLIONS! Usually it is due to the fact that Hospitals will charge the maximum when they know the government is footing the bill.

So, my argument doesn't contridict itself because some other countries do a better job than our country with Socialize medicine, but that doesn't mean that a fully privatized system wouldn't be better.

To answer you last question which stumped the EMT:

Look at healthcare in the US before the government got involved (it hasn't even been that long ago). The system was less costly and more efficent, and no one was "turned away" because they couldn't pay (charity took care of it). In fact most hospital used to be run by churches! But guess why that isn't the case anymore?

The government got involved and the prices got out of hand and they didn't want to deal with it anymore (or couldn't in some cases).

Report this comment
#55) On January 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM, UVAFool (86.48) wrote:

I believe the Democrats want to do what the Republicans already did in October, 2008.

The Republicans bailed-out their buddies in the banks and the Wall Street firms "FOR THE GREATER GOOD" in October, now the Democrats want to attempt a bail-out the rest of America who don't have Friends in Washington.

 It only seems fair.

Report this comment
#56) On January 31, 2009 at 1:03 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

You all at least have some hope now as your new administration  (esp Obama) is doing a fantastic job after years of greedy, right winged political bigots!!

Why are Americans afraid of Democratic Socialism??

PS, Just what the rest of the world needs - More crappy American films. Not to mention the US military finding new ways to try to flex it's muscle. Keep up the good work (sarcastic).

Report this comment
#57) On January 31, 2009 at 1:13 PM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

drummnutt,

You are assuming that I wouldn't make great films that promote socialism?

LOL.

But hey at least you got you socialist propaganda into my highly read blog. Don't confuse Socialism with Charity comrade. Charity can do just fine without the government stealing to "force" social programs.

Report this comment
#58) On January 31, 2009 at 1:28 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Charity? Will your hospitals, schools, universities, etc run from charity. What a stupid suggestion. I am suggesting that the state provide basic and worthwile services (Socialism) not that INDIVIDUALS will somehow become charitable. So no, I haven't confused the terms. Unfortunately, many Americans have swallowed rhetoric that is based on fear and not logic.

Thanks for welcoming different ideas however.

Report this comment
#59) On January 31, 2009 at 1:37 PM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

drummnutt,

Everything you listed USED TO RUN ON CHARITY (even schools!)

And many of them still do. Where do you think universities get most of their money? Not from the government that's for da^n sure!

Hospitals were always Charity run. ALWAYS. Until we started socializing medicine more and more and they could no longer afford it.

You seem to assume that people don't value healthcare or education enough to pay for it? And you also seem to assume that people would let "the poor" go without these things. Both are dead wrong and there are numerous examples from history to prove you wrong.

Report this comment
#60) On January 31, 2009 at 1:52 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Your house used to be lit by candles.

Your university graduates (except for the very elite) are hopelessly under educated compaired to the modern world. No, your poor and unfortunate victims of society cannot afford health care even though they value it. Hospitals are not staffed by volunteer nurses and doctors. No, your individuals will not provide for all of the unemployed to receive their needs. Nice dream though (I have the same one).

Report this comment
#61) On January 31, 2009 at 1:59 PM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

drummnutt,

Now you are just making senseless arguments. I believe what you just did is called a non sequitur which is Latin for "it does not follow"...

When you come up with a real argument and something that comes close to disproving one or more of my points I will respond, but it's difficult to argue with nonsense.

Report this comment
#62) On January 31, 2009 at 2:12 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Actually, I speak Italian, so Latin is not foreign to me. Unfortunately, I made perfect sense, but you must be too blind to see. If you are suggesting that charity could replace state funded activities - you are in dreamland - Wake up. Sorry to be so harsh but there is no point in "beating around the bush".

Report this comment
#63) On January 31, 2009 at 7:17 PM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

 

My blueberry example may not prove that wealth cannot be created, but it certainly disproves your orange example is an example of wealth being created.

Your processor and motherboard example also falls short. The motherboard merely unlocks the wealth that was already in the copper and silicon and plastic used to make them. A faster more efficient and smaller processor merely reveals the additional wealth already locked away in the silicon.

The wealth was already in the silicon, waiting to be found, but it was not created by its discovery.

Your comments on healthcare are interesting. If I believed this:

 I don't need austrian economics to show you that people will always try to get the most for doing the least...it's human nature.

I certainly could not believe all the charity that this demands:

Look at healthcare in the US before the government got involved (it hasn't even been that long ago). The system was less costly and more efficent, and no one was "turned away" because they couldn't pay (charity took care of it). In fact most hospital used to be run by churches!

However, neither statement relects the real world. Humans are varied. A select few are as you describe them, and others will work tirelessly and demand nothing more than sustainance in return. Most people I know try to help themselves and take reassurance from others success.

Your comments about hospitals took some time for me though. I found very few examples of hospitals that were born without Government help. Almost all were funded by Gov't including a NY hospital that found funding from King Charles III. But your assertion that the USA ever had a healthcare system without Gov't involvment is clearly mistaken. It has always been as it is today, a combination of Taxpayer funding and charitable giving.

An example of a successful private healthcare system anywhere in the world still eludes us.

I also question your imaginary historical system as a model that depends upon the charity of caregivers, without depending upon the charity of drug companys and insurers. Do you expect the caregivers to be charitable, even as the drug companys and insurers are not?

Report this comment
#64) On January 31, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Option1307 (29.70) wrote:

May I ask you devoish, DaretothREdux, etc.

Is healthcare a privilege, or a right?

This is a fundamental question and it's answer is rather telling. This may seem cold and cruel, but in my eyes healthcare is not a right, it is a privilege. Therefore the government is not responsible and should not be socializing healthcare. This goes for all entitlement programs in my eyes. No where in the constitution does it say that healthcare should and/or must be provided to all citizens.

This is not to say that I am not for some sort of "short-term" coverage to help those in times of dire stress and life transitions. Yet, I see no need for permanent lifelong coverage. This only encourages people to not seek their own help and provide for themselves.

 With a govnerment providing all, where is the encouragement to obtain a better education and get a better job? Where is the encouragement to strive harder and succeed in life? There is none. When people are taken care of, they (most people) become complacent and no longer seek to advance themselves. When you have to work for things, there is termendous motivation to work hard and become the best you can.

I am a firm believer in taking care of yourself and your family. Whether it is education, food, medical needs, etc, they are your responsibility, not the governments. Yes healthcare is expensive. Yes there are huge inefficiencies. Yes it needs to be revamped and restructured significantly. However, I don't understand the call for socialized medicine. Why does everyone request to be taken care of by the government? Where is the desire and drive to take care of one's family and self?

I know there are no facts/references in here, sorry for that all. But this is a fundamental question I have for all those that desire entitlement programs. I honetly believe that reforms are needed in terms of healthcare, and thinks can be made cheaper. But why do many people feel they are entitled to permanent lifelong healthcare?

I realize this may seem offensive, but it is not enteded to be...

Report this comment
#65) On February 01, 2009 at 2:45 AM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

Is healthcare a privilege, or a right?

It is an obligation.

I am a firm believer in taking care of yourself and your family.

It is an obligation to your family, your community, and your Country.

Report this comment
#66) On February 01, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Option1307 (29.70) wrote:

It is an obligation.

I actually like this answer, never heard this response before. Props to you.

I basically agree with you that it is an obligation; however, I would argue that it is an obligation for you and you alone to provide this service, not the governemnt. You are obligated to provide shelter, food, and healthcare for your family IMO, it is not the government's responsibility. As I said before, reforms need to happen in order to make the healthcare system better, but I do not believe it is the government's job nor responsibilty to provide it to the people.

It is an obligation to your family, your community, and your Country.

It seems as you are implying that the governemnt is obligated to provide healthcare to all it's citizens, am I reading you right?  Care to elaborate on this one? Why do you feel the government is obligated to? I'll give you he benefit of the doubt, maybe your implying that family is mainly responsible and the government only is required to help out as the absolute last resort, yes?

I realize I will never persuade you to change your mind, nor do I care to really. While I disagree with some of your fundamental views on government's role in society, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I'm not here to judge. Actually, you present your arguments in a logically way, which is hard to find regading thses topics. Normally they are completely full of emotion and nothing more. So I thank you for that. Understanding the "opposite" view is equally as important, we can all learn.

 And who knows, maybe after enough of these conversations you'll come to reality and go against government run healthcare! (Kidding).

Report this comment
#67) On February 02, 2009 at 3:59 PM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

drummnutt,

You are right. Charity could never replace the state since the state steals the majority of people's money. It's very difficult to give when over 1/3 of what you make is taken from you. Yet, Americans do still give quite a bit. Imagine if we were allowed to keep our money. The state is not necessary (or at least it is minimally necessary at best) and it inevitably does more damage than good. 

You think there was no Charity before government?

What about many of the American Indian peoples (the non-government ones)? And no they were not socialists either. I promise they believed in property rights. You just couldn't walk in and take your neighbors bow and arrow.

Report this comment
#68) On February 02, 2009 at 4:28 PM, whereaminow (21.29) wrote:

Devoish,

Your logic is faulty. The wealth was not in the silicon waiting to be created. The wealth was in the mind of the individual that discovered how to use the silicon to suit his/her purpose.

Wealth is created by filling your mind with knowledge.

A human and a piece of silicon are sitting next to each other for twenty years. The human never studies. He/she is not inquisitive. The silicon just sits there, unused. The silicon can make no adjustment. It cannot re-form itself, or become productive on its own. If the human does not learn to use it, it is worthless. Twenty years later, you still have a human and a piece of silicon. No wealth has been created, or unlocked.

You speak of wealth being trapped inside the resources of this planet, waiting to be unleashed. You are right, but the resource is our brain, the only resource on this planet that is capable of rational thought.

Wealth is created through the application of the imagination of the individual, sometimes working alone, sometimes working with others, always applying knowledge acquired through curiosity and study.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#69) On February 02, 2009 at 8:37 PM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

option1307,

The obligation you feel toward your family can best be met by universal healthcare through an entity (your government) larger than yourself because you might die.You may not need help, you may imagine yourself prepared for all eventualitys but you are wrong. You need help to assure the health of your family as do I.

Daretoth,

What "non-government " indians?

David,

You are correct, there is no wealth from the stone, without the man. Likewise, there is no wealth from the stone, without the stone.

My logic is fine.

Report this comment
#70) On February 02, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Option1307 (29.70) wrote:

devoish

The obligation you feel toward your family can best be met by universal healthcare through an entity (your government) larger than yourself because you might die.

Umm, what? Your argument for governemnt healthcare is that at some point we might die and thus not be able to take care of our families anymore...Isn't that a little broad and kind of weak?

Just fyi, when I die, the responsiblity for healthcare then goes to other family members. Beit, a spouse, parents, children, etc.

 

I was really enjoying your logical comments and responses, but that one was pretty sad...

Report this comment
#71) On February 03, 2009 at 12:04 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

devoish,

The Blackfoot nations were "non-government" they only elected a "Cheif" for one two reason: peace/war. In times of peace they elected a good diplomat, and in times of war they elected a strong warrior who could lead into battle. But the tribe spent most of its time in small groups called "bands" usually between 30-240 people and lived freely without anyone to answer to but the community.

That's as close to zero government as you can possibly come.

Report this comment
#72) On February 03, 2009 at 12:18 AM, rags2riches247 (85.90) wrote:

I think that the stimulus plan should be a stimulus plan and not a place to put pet projects.  We need at least 200 billion for infrastructure, tax cuts, and no pork. However, will all due respect, you are very wrong on this statement:

"$400 million dollars (the amount given to “research” on a total lie)"

The impact of burning fossil fuels on our atmosphere is a real concern and research is extremely important.  I am a scientist at Harvard and my colleagues and I are struggling to ensure we have funding for the next 5 years because of extensive budget cuts. Scientists do a lot for the economy- especially the ones that are funded by the government and are allowed to do basic science.  Scientists will definitely contribute more to you and your children's lives than a blockbuster movie.

Report this comment
#73) On February 03, 2009 at 12:59 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

rags2riches247,

In all fairness to the art of film, which I doubt you know very little about I doubt that you can measure the difference or change or hope or inspiration brought about by any movie or any art for that matter, it doesn't make it any more or less a great endeavor to embark upon than the study of science. That being said I don't doubt that science contribute to the good of the world, but I should be able to spend my money how I desire. You would be no less angry if I were to take the profits of science to make my movie. All I ask is to let people keep what they earn. The government after all is a terrible judge of who or what is worthy of my money.

Report this comment
#74) On February 03, 2009 at 10:48 AM, whereaminow (21.29) wrote:

Devoish,

Choice. Substitution. Action.

You make a great case for Austrian School Economics and Libertarianism.

Humans have the choice. They can choose to use the resource. They can choose to use a substitue. They can choose to act.

The stone can't choose to act. The stone can sit around for a billion years and still have unlocked wealth, as you refer to it, but what is the point of that argument? Just to show us the limits of philosophy?

All human action, so far as it is rational, appears as the exchange of one condition for another... This is the essence of economic activity--the carrying out of acts of exchange. - Ludwig Von Mises

It is from the understanding that humans act purposively, and that stones do not, that forms the basis of Austrian School economics.

I hope you will investigate more of what they have to offer.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#75) On February 03, 2009 at 11:03 AM, breaktrack (53.14) wrote:

Great post Dare! I have a theory-as long as the American people are warm, fed and clothed they really don't seem to pay much attention what the retreds down in DC are doing. That observation is true throughout history but is slowly starting to change. They are starting to get hungry and cold. Americans are realizing that they are being misled by the gangsters down in DC who pass laws that they continually break. The Amercian sheeple are hopefully going to wake up and see this ANTI STIMULUS PORKULUS BILL for the socialist, liberal sham that it is. The list that Dare pointed out is only a fraction of the waste that is in this socialist Christmas list.

 People-time to wake up and DEMAND that your Senator vote no on this 1 TRILLION dollars of waste.We are better off letting this recession runs it's course rather than saddle our great, great, great grandkids with more debt.  May God save this country.

Report this comment
#76) On February 03, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Mary953 (73.43) wrote:

I have a theory. If it is right, then it is very frustrating and explains a great deal.  You will have to tell me if I am right or wrong.  I am guessing that you are mostly around or under age 35 because of a phrase you keep using - YOUR Senator, YOUR Congressman.  At least through Reagan, possibly longer, we the people were urged to write or call CONGRESS.  Not just the one person that represented us in the House or the two in the Senate.  You contacted everybody. Everybody acted as though they listened.  A subcommittee, committee, especially someone in a leadership roll was expected to be voted in by a small group perhaps, but was expected to realize that his or her authority and responsibility extended nationally.

I have noted that as the years have passed, it is not just that you are not listened to courteously (the beginning of the change), or rerouted to someone else (the middle), but now you are told - she doesn't represent you.  You need to call Your OWN representative, Click.  When did our Congress become a house divided?  When did it become 50 Balkanized States that do not speak to each other and do not care what anyone in the other 49 states want or need?  Of course they pass Christmas tree legislation.  If something isn't hauling money into their district by the truckload, they just lost a battle AGAINST the rest of the country.  This is an insane way to run a country.  We have so many little fiefdoms instead of one great nation. 

Bush got to nominate and place two Supreme Court justices on the bench, true, but Obama gets a bigger prize.  He will be in office when the census is complete.  Think of all that lovely gerrymandering to be done, drawing up new voting districts. I know that a great deal will be done on the local and state level, but on the national level, there must be some delightful stuff to be squeezed from all of this. 

Report this comment
#77) On February 03, 2009 at 9:08 PM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

option,

All right, here's the truth.

Everyone gets healthcare because Grandma says they do. Even the drunken bum gets taken care of because as Grandma says, "It's just what you do".

There are a lot of people who post on here and think they can judge who is deserving. They embarrass themselves, but the lowest are the ones who think having enough money is the test of who is deserving.

http://snowsuit.net/

 

Report this comment
#78) On February 04, 2009 at 1:46 AM, DaretothREdux (42.54) wrote:

breaktrack,

Amen brother!

Mary953,

Scary thoughts. While I do know that there are more than "my" Senator and "my" representatives...I find that most people can't even name theirs...so if I can simply get them to call one or two people than perhaps that person will listen (but prob. not), and you are right that the Census is the big prize. God help us.

devoish,

I may have to start a serperate blog just so we can get the whole community to argue about socialized medicine, but that was not the point of this one.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement