Why do people hate Liberals?

[Harry Dresden]

You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. What will the rich fucking asshole get in return for supporting a con with oodles of money? Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions I'll try again but a different question; name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left? I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, as are the numerous rich fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.

The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side. Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.

You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.

i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you

Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions

since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....

name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?
Soros

I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole,

probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....

fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.

and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....

The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side. Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.

and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....

OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.

Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?

Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.

But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid.

tell that to the Ford guy.....i dont give a shit what Party a person belongs too.....in Politics you dont give millions away without expecting something back.....and this includes Rich Liberals.....and i dont mean Bill Mahr donating a Million.....i mean people or Corporations who donate multi-million's to a Political Campaign or Party......

 

[zeke]

You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.

i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you

Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions

since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....

name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?
Soros

I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole,

probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....

fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.

and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....

The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side. Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.

and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....

OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.

Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?

Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.

But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid.

tell that to the Ford guy.....i dont give a shit what Party a person belongs too.....in Politics you dont give millions away without expecting something back.....and this includes Rich Liberals.....and i dont mean Bill Mahr donating a Million.....i mean people or Corporations who donate multi-million's to a Political Campaign or Party......

I think he (Ford) can read. Seems we agree with the idea the mega donors want something in return for their millions of dollars.

Would you think that there are some ultra rich who might have desires to help a broad base of people (Bill Gates comes to mind) and their are others who desire to only help themselves and their friends and supporters?

What do you think the Koch Brothers want? Addleson?

And how is it good for America in general to have the ultra rich be able to give so much money that they are able to buy influence and elections and enable the politicians to basically ignore us regular folk? How is that "good"?

 

[Ernie S.]

Freewill -

Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?

I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame. So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?

Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.

Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.

I just gave you 3.

Why do people hate Liberals?

This woman is trying to push me over the edge...

I don't "hate" anyone. Seems to me that hate is a word Progressives ascribe to Conservatives the same way they ascribe "racist" to anyone who criticizes the policies of the President.

1. Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted,

Like Barney Frank saying that Fannie Mae was in fine shape when the Bush Admin tried to "regulate" it?

2. his tax cuts for the rich.

You do realize that everyone got tax cuts, do you not? That the poor got even larger EITC's; receiving larger refunds than they had paid in?

3. and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.

Both wars had broad bipartisan support and were engaged to end terrorist attacks on our citizens and based on near universally accepted intelligence.
Explain why we got involved in Libya and document the bipartisan support.
Extra points for explaining how the Libyan campaign was not in violation of the War Powers Act.

 

[Ernie S.]

You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. What will the rich fucking asshole get in return for supporting a con with oodles of money? Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions I'll try again but a different question; name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left? I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, as are the numerous rich fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.

The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side. Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.

You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.

i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you

Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions

since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....

name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?
Soros

I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole,

probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....

fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.

and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....

The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side. Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.

and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....

OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.

Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?

Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.

But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid.

OK, the Koch brothers want something done to benefit them in exchange for all the millions they have given. Now what is it they want? I don't know, but they want something. Access maybe?
A more level playing field maybe. They are opposed to what the ultra rich left wingers, the public sector labor unions and the OWS scum want and are willing to put their money up to fight whatever.

 

[Sactowndog]

For the businesses and employees that get the 400mil in business revenue and the taxes they pay...yes indeed.

I tend to look at the broad/big picture. You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side. Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments. What do you think that might be?

what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....

I don't think this is true at all as I believe most people want what's best for the country. But I will say a friend of mine who is a business broker and is worth millions has a different opinion. While he and I are aligned he believes much of the wall street money is only interested in enriching themselves and lowering or eliminating their taxes regardless of the effect on the country.

 

[HUGGY]

I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame. So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?

Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.

Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.

I just gave you 3.

were you part of the 10% of the Country who was against Bush attacking Afghanistan?...

That wasn't the stated mission. Bush said he would go to the gates of hell or some such nonsense to get those that committed 9/11. He lied about that too as he seemed to purposely let Ossama escape in Tora Bora.

If Bush had stated the truth of what he wanted to do which was get footprints in Afgahnistan so he could invade Iraq, Ossama be damned, he would have never had support. Bush and Cheney and Rice and Powell lied and moved the goal posts constantly with a heavy dose of fear mongering and lying bullshit to get us where we are today in those countries.

Bush could have easily sent in special ops with orders to kill Bin Ladin and got it over with in a couple of weeks.

He did not. He wasted over a trillion dollars ..got twice as many Americans killed as died on 9/11...was responsible for probably a million Afgans and Iraqis killed and maimed..several million displaced.

Don't mistake kindness for letting Bush off the hook for his blundering, plundering and murder for weakness or amnesia. If right was right Bush should be in prison. It's way too soon for the lying republicans to rewrite the history of Bush's crimes. Better leave it alone. The statute of limitations on treason, war profiteering and murder will never expire.

 

[Sactowndog]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.

First, you're not an American. Of course, you can be a liberal and an American, but the term "liberal" is used as an insult in the American lexicon. Very few national politicians get up on stage and call themselves a liberal, even the liberal ones.

To conservatives - rightly or wrongly - liberals are the embodiment of all that is anti-American. In American mythology - and I do not use the term "mythology" in a pejorative sense - the individual is sovereign. Individuals are free from government interference to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Of course, like all mythologies, this is a generalization and actual practice is rife with contradictions, but the central concept is generally correct. To be an American is to be a free individual. This does not mean freedom from hunger or freedom from homelessness, as it means to parts of the European left. It means freedom of action from government coercion. Liberals may reasonably differ from this interpretation but liberals generally want to use government to right social wrongs. Conservatives view this as an intrusion onto the sovereignty of the individual, which they view as an assault on what it means to be an American.

Toro I would agree with you if you substituted libertarian with conservative. Today's social conservatives are nothing of the sort you describe. They are more concerned with the nation being a "Christian" nation than individual liberties. In fact they will throw many liberties under the bus in the name of fighting the enemies of their faith: gays, Muslims, etc.

 

[Sactowndog]

Their economic theory's are destructive.

The world is flat.

And in this context both sides policies are destructive to the American middle class. Trickle down isn't such a great theory when the down it trickles to is in China and Vietnam.

Sadly conservatives today are divided into two groups: those too uneducated to understand and those to self centered to care.

 

[Sactowndog]

So you work for Exxon? lol You don't believe the planet is warming? I'll go with objective scientists.

Nope, my first job was with Dames and Moore, you wouldn't know who they were as they were the worlds first environmental geology company. You know folks who actually try and fix the damage man has done to the planet, unlike you folks who just want to tax people to pollute more.

And as far as objective scientists go, when you can show me one of those "objective" scientists who isn't dependent on government largesse for the AGW "research" they do, you let me know.

One thing is perfectly clear to me when it comes to the con's. They put money above all, even human life. Therefore their starting point is warped which leads to warped solutions(?).

This is a bit off track but ponder this; if this country could/would just focus on the massive WASTE and inefficiency we could save so much of our home (Earth) and money. You know lead by example!

The US only gets around 30% efficiency rate from it's power grid, from generation to the consumer. Which means 60% of a unit of energy is pissed away. In comparison, Japan wastes 10% with 90% efficiency rate. That's just one segment! Virtually every segment of US society wastes beyond belief which is why we as a nation (5% of worlds population) wastes 30% of the worlds resources. Time to wake up to the fact that this economy is UNSUSTAINABLE.

Instead of we American's bitching about China sending us their poisonous trinkets and such we should quit demanding/consuming them. Simple really!!

Let me put it in economic not moral terms. Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care. Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare. As a nation, if we can remake those sectors and make them more efficient we will see a huge economic boost as the entire population will have more discretionary dollars.

But to accomplish this efficiency we have to examine what assumptions we hold dear that are in fact not working and makes us less efficient. This simply must be done and Obama is 110% right to be focusing in these areas and the Republicans in Congress are 110% wrong to be blocking him merely in an attempt to keep him from being re-elected or to protect those companies who are benefiting from this inefficiency.

 

[kaz]

Let me put it in economic not moral terms. Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care. Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare

Let's examine the big issues:

Energy -> Government endlessly impedes companies from drilling off our shores, in Alaska, and on Federal land, government blocks new Nuclear plants, government restricts horizontal fracking, government blocks coal plants including clean burning coal, government blocks building new oil refineries, government has created roughly 30 local gas blends and government wastes billions on inefficient technologies...

Medical -> government creates endless mandates on insurance carriers like paying for things like sex change operations and hair transplants, government created a system of endless frivolous lawsuits so a doctor starting out can have a six figure insurance policy they have to cover, government blocks selling policies across State lines, government gives employers tax breaks but not individual policies so people can't manage their own healthcare plans, government blocks people from taking their coverage with them if they leave their job. Government abets foreign countries stealing American pharmaceuticals without paying for the R&D that was used to develop them so American consumers pay higher prices...

So your read of the situation is the problem is not enough government. Gotcha...

 

[WillowTree]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.

You are new to the board? Then you should do more reading, If you don't see the attacks on the right from the left you must be A. blind, B. willfully biased, or C. unable to comprehend what you read.

 

[kaz]

You are new to the board? Then you should do more reading, If you don't see the attacks on the right from the left you must be A. blind, B. willfully biased, or C. unable to comprehend what you read.

When liberals call Republicans racist, sexist homophobes that isn't personal. If you criticize the Democratic Party's energy policy that is a personal attack on every liberal.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Being used as a prostitute at I-95 truck stops since 18 has made her eyes go cross-eyed. She focus better on her target.

I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame. So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?

Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.

Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.

I just gave you 3.

Why do people hate Liberals?

This woman is trying to push me over the edge...

I don't "hate" anyone. Seems to me that hate is a word Progressives ascribe to Conservatives the same way they ascribe "racist" to anyone who criticizes the policies of the President.

1. Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted,

Like Barney Frank saying that Fannie Mae was in fine shape when the Bush Admin tried to "regulate" it?

2. his tax cuts for the rich.

You do realize that everyone got tax cuts, do you not? That the poor got even larger EITC's; receiving larger refunds than they had paid in?

3. and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.

Both wars had broad bipartisan support and were engaged to end terrorist attacks on our citizens and based on near universally accepted intelligence.
Explain why we got involved in Libya and document the bipartisan support.
Extra points for explaining how the Libyan campaign was not in violation of the War Powers Act.

 

[Sactowndog]

Let me put it in economic not moral terms. Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care. Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare

Let's examine the big issues:

Energy -> Government endlessly impedes companies from drilling off our shores, in Alaska, and on Federal land, government blocks new Nuclear plants, government restricts horizontal fracking, government blocks coal plants including clean burning coal, government blocks building new oil refineries, government has created roughly 30 local gas blends and government wastes billions on inefficient technologies...
..

Let me take these one at a time....

1) In terms of negative government mandates Democrats aren't alone. The California blend was mandated by a Republican Congress largely at the behest of Archer Daniels Midland. Would the drilling projects you mentioned be viable without the tax credits given to oil and gas? All types of energy receive government assistance today. If you want the government out of energy why just mention the ones you don't like. Also it is common for new technologies to need a push to generate critical mass for distribution. You should be more concerned with old technologies sucking at the government teat.

2) The government should fund basic research in paradigm shifting techologies. Much of the technology we have today from composites to the Internet comes from government funding.

3) Government has always played a role in infrastructure. The national highway system was government funded and laid the ground work for years of economic expansion. Upgrading our infrastructure to more efficiently generate and distribute electricity is a valid role of government.

4) The tragedy of the commons is real. It is a valid purpose of government to balance protecting the environment with economic matters. Having grown up in the smog of LA and having seen China, I don't think anyone wants to eliminate that balance.

 

[kaz]

Let me put it in economic not moral terms. Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care. Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare

Let's examine the big issues:

Energy -> Government endlessly impedes companies from drilling off our shores, in Alaska, and on Federal land, government blocks new Nuclear plants, government restricts horizontal fracking, government blocks coal plants including clean burning coal, government blocks building new oil refineries, government has created roughly 30 local gas blends and government wastes billions on inefficient technologies...
..

Let me take these one at a time....

1) In terms of negative government mandates Democrats aren't alone. The California blend was mandated by a Republican Congress largely at the behest of Archer Daniels Midland. Would the drilling projects you mentioned be viable without the tax credits given to oil and gas? All types of energy receive government assistance today. If you want the government out of energy why just mention the ones you don't like. Also it is common for new technologies to need a push to generate critical mass for distribution. You should be more concerned with old technologies sucking at the government teat.

2) The government should fund basic research in paradigm shifting techologies. Much of the technology we have today from composites to the Internet comes from government funding.

3) Government has always played a role in infrastructure. The national highway system was government funded and laid the ground work for years of economic expansion. Upgrading our infrastructure to more efficiently generate and distribute electricity is a valid role of government.

4) The tragedy of the commons is real. It is a valid purpose of government to balance protecting the environment with economic matters. Having grown up in the smog of LA and having seen China, I don't think anyone wants to eliminate that balance.

So you stated we have price inefficiencies, I gave you a bunch of real reasons for that, and your argument is a few weak rationalizations for little pieces of them? And that is your solution to fixing energy prices?

Can't argue with that...

 

[Sactowndog]

Let me put it in economic not moral terms. Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care. Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare

Let's examine the big issues:

Medical -> government creates endless mandates on insurance carriers like paying for things like sex change operations and hair transplants, government created a system of endless frivolous lawsuits so a doctor starting out can have a six figure insurance policy they have to cover, government blocks selling policies across State lines, government gives employers tax breaks but not individual policies so people can't manage their own healthcare plans, government blocks people from taking their coverage with them if they leave their job. Government abets foreign countries stealing American pharmaceuticals without paying for the R&D that was used to develop them so American consumers pay higher prices...

So your read of the situation is the problem is not enough government. Gotcha...

You leave out the most important mandate which is government mandates that hospitals treat the uninsured who enter their emergency room.

The big problem with healthcare is we want it to be free market but we don't accept what that means. A demand curve requires people drop out of the market as the cost rises. Applied to healthcare that means as the cost rises at each point the decision is made to let the entity die rather than pay the price. These decisions occur everyday in animal health but never occur in human health care. Without it you can't have a demand curve and without a demand curve you can't have a true market based system.

That means you have to have a pseudo market solution that effectively accounts for the fact that we are unwilling to let people exit the market and the means government has to be involved to some extent.

 

[Harry Dresden]

OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.

Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?

Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.

But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid.

tell that to the Ford guy.....i dont give a shit what Party a person belongs too.....in Politics you dont give millions away without expecting something back.....and this includes Rich Liberals.....and i dont mean Bill Mahr donating a Million.....i mean people or Corporations who donate multi-million's to a Political Campaign or Party......

I think he (Ford) can read. Seems we agree with the idea the mega donors want something in return for their millions of dollars.

Would you think that there are some ultra rich who might have desires to help a broad base of people (Bill Gates comes to mind) and their are others who desire to only help themselves and their friends and supporters?

What do you think the Koch Brothers want? Addleson?

And how is it good for America in general to have the ultra rich be able to give so much money that they are able to buy influence and elections and enable the politicians to basically ignore us regular folk? How is that "good"?

Would you think that there are some ultra rich who might have desires to help a broad base of people (Bill Gates comes to mind)

yes i do....but these people usually give money directly to who they are trying to help......and by the way one of the Koch Bros has given millions to research centers and the like around the Country......so its not all politics with him.....

and their are others who desire to only help themselves and their friends and supporters?

yes those who give to Political Campaigns or Politicians on ANY level....

What do you think the Koch Brothers want?

i dont know....but im sure their Money comes with a price.....


And how is it good for America in general to have the ultra rich be able to give so much money that they are able to buy influence and elections and enable the politicians to basically ignore us regular folk? How is that "good"?

its not good.....i feel in the political world anyone who gives A LOT of money wants something in return.....and it doesnt look good for the recipient either.....what was promised?..........Rich Democrat,Rich Republican.....it doesnt matter....when push comes to shove the Rich will stick together......they dont want to lose what they have.....do you think Koch or Soros would want to live on 50 thousand a year?....

 

[kaz]

Let me put it in economic not moral terms. Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care. Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare

Let's examine the big issues:

Medical -> government creates endless mandates on insurance carriers like paying for things like sex change operations and hair transplants, government created a system of endless frivolous lawsuits so a doctor starting out can have a six figure insurance policy they have to cover, government blocks selling policies across State lines, government gives employers tax breaks but not individual policies so people can't manage their own healthcare plans, government blocks people from taking their coverage with them if they leave their job. Government abets foreign countries stealing American pharmaceuticals without paying for the R&D that was used to develop them so American consumers pay higher prices...

So your read of the situation is the problem is not enough government. Gotcha...

You leave out the most important mandate which is government mandates that hospitals treat the uninsured who enter their emergency room.

The big problem with healthcare is we want it to be free market but we don't accept what that means. A demand curve requires people drop out of the market as the cost rises. Applied to healthcare that means as the cost rises at each point the decision is made to let the entity die rather than pay the price. These decisions occur everyday in animal health but never occur in human health care. Without it you can't have a demand curve and without a demand curve you can't have a true market based system.

That means you have to have a pseudo market solution that effectively accounts for the fact that we are unwilling to let people exit the market and the means government has to be involved to some extent.

And therefore government can fix it? Hmm...

 

[Billo_Really]

remember this next time you are in a thread with Truthmatters,Dean,Chris,Franco and Dudley.......especially Dean and Chris....

I never politicize logical deductive reasoning. Whenever I see flawed logic in someone's post, I'll say something about it. And I don't care if its a liberal post or a conservative post. There's no place for irrational reasoning when we are discussing politics. And if someone comes back and explains their logic in more detail and it becomes apparent there was something I didn't take into consideration, I got no problem admitting I'm wrong.

What really pisses my gord, are these dumbshits who offer no evidence to backup their claim and just act like they've proved their point.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Oh the irony....dumbfuck.

I guess you hate yourself.

remember this next time you are in a thread with Truthmatters,Dean,Chris,Franco and Dudley.......especially Dean and Chris....

I never politicize logical deductive reasoning. Whenever I see flawed logic in someone's post, I'll say something about it. And I don't care if its a liberal post or a conservative post. There's no place for irrational reasoning when we are discussing politics. And if someone comes back and explains their logic in more detail and it becomes apparent there was something I didn't take into consideration, I got no problem admitting I'm wrong.

What really pisses my gord, are these dumbshits who offer no evidence to backup their claim and just act like they've proved their point.