Another Day - Another DU splinter site....

[Carl]

Didn't really take any balls. Although I've been a member of DU for probably around 6 years yesterday was the first time I heard of this site since it showed up in Google Analytics as a referral. I saw this thread and figured I should respond. I appreciate you guys letting me do that.

I think one of the biggest problems we face in this country is that people are more concerned about petty bullshit than trying to deal with actual issues this country faces.

If you want to discuss Clinton I think Clinton was a horrible president.

If you want to discuss Obama well I think he is doing a pretty shitty job.

If you want to discuss Cater we can certainly do that but the problem is I wasn't even alive back then.

Now if you want to discuss actual issues maybe that would be more useful? You said the ideas of the left are unacceptable. What ideas specifically? That lobbyists shouldn't have the influence in our government that they have? That the people making financial policy in this country shouldn't by large come from wall street? That pot should be legal? That dumping close to a trillion dollars a year in to our defense might be a bit overkill?

You know one of my biggest problems with the Tea Party for example is? The movement formed because of the bailouts supposedly. Bailouts that handed out trillions of dollars to wall street and happened during a republican administration. Have you seen the type of rage from the Tea Party that they have for Democrats ever be directed at republicans or wall street? Maybe you can find some isolated examples, but by enlarge the answer is no. I am yet to see a tea party protest outside of a wall street bank. But I have seen a lot of tea party protests about "where's the birth certificate".

You don't find that a bit odd?

The basic premise of the left since FDR through LBJ is that society is unfair and that only government can right perceived wrongs.
Of course this is bullshit and never will happen which the power elite of the left full well know...it is a carrot held out to exploit and then entrap a permanent underclass preserving power and the supposed detested wealth for themselves.

As far as the rest of your statement you need to get your facts in order...TARP was begun under President Bush with a level of support from both sides.
What started the TEA party movement was the massive porkullis bill O rammed through that has done nothing but pad the coffers of political supporters.
It was a payoff engineered by Pelosi at the expense of the taxpayers and then on top of that we had O care shoved up our ass.
Another massive spending program built on deliberately false presentations of budgetary figures.

Both prove my point...every so often the electorate falls asleep and wants to believe they can have something given to them at the expense of someone else but in short order they wake up to the fact it is indeed them paying the price.

[USA4ME]

In all due respect you seem to live under the presumption that the views of the left are acceptable and desirable but just aren`t getting fair play.

You noticed the same thing in his/her posts that I did, and your above quote reflects the same reaction as I had.  When they're so far to the left they believe the left is the right, then I don't really see the point of going on.  I know where the center is, I know I'm slightly right of center, so I'm able to converse with others with the proper prespective.  At some point, one would hope they would figure out their ideas are out there, they've been examined by many, many people, but they just aren't very convincing.  Talking about it more isn't going to change that.

Several of these libs form these beliefs that the real battle is "multi-national corps vs. non-corps" and/or the "the wealthy vs. the rest of us" and/or whatever other comparison they wish to invent.   But, the line in the sand is smaller gov't vs. large gov't.  Gov't has the potential to grow out of control beyond the ability of the people to control it, that's where the danger lies.  Multi-national corps are just not in that position, nor will they ever be with smaller gov't.  In fact, the only way it even has the potential to happen is if the gov't continues to grow to the point where much of the left would like it to be.  So in essance by desiring a larger gov't, they're inviting the very multi-national corp takeover they don't want to occur.

.

[Ballygrl]

It's true about the left not having a sense of humor, they're also whiny babies when they lose. Their behavior when Bush won in 04 was outrageous, whereas when Obama won I openly congratulated them and PM'd a few saying congrats, very few on the left do that, they're just always miserable even when they're in power.

[franksolich]

I know where the center is, I know I'm slightly right of center, so I'm able to converse with others with the proper perspective.

Uh uh.  You said it.

There are academic and scientific gauges of political ideology, but some people on the other side of the aisle seem to think such definitions are fluid, and subject to the meanings they wish to give them.

The primitives on Skins's island, for example, have utterly degraded measurements of political ideology, such as using "right-wing," rather than to describe political stances, to simply describe people they don't like.

For the record, franksolich is s-o-o-o-o-o-o middle of the road he gets run over by traffic going both directions; to call me "right-wing" is preposterous.  (Nothing special about myself; this is a cultural characteristic common of those born and raised in the Upper Great Plains.)

Then why would franksolich be posting on a "right-wing" message board?

Probably because this "right-wing" message board is actually.....pretty much middle of the road.

[Karin]

I went over and visited No Limit's site.  I noticed there were no conservative voices, or even moderately R people. 

I also noticed that in the "Latest Breaking News" section on the front page, were posted stories about Fox News.  Ratings, and some kind of story about an exec on a cruise.  The world is on fire, and this is what you post as "Latest Breaking News?"  Really?  To me, that's not a serious site, and I won't be attracted to the brilliant insights posted there. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

You will pray to The One this way......

Yeah.  As different (But as mutually hostile) as Big-enders and Little-Enders from Gulliver's Travels.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Can't really say anything about the name left underground when our name is conservative underground.  Then again left underground sounds like a really sad mine explosion movie.  Great now I am depressed about miners getting blown up and buried in the mine.  I hope you are happy!

Hittin' the bottle kinda early today, ain't ya?

 

[VelvetElvis]

Can't really say anything about the name left underground when our name is conservative underground.  Then again left underground sounds like a really sad mine explosion movie.  Great now I am depressed about miners getting blown up and buried in the mine.  I hope you are happy!

Mama, are you channeling vesta-numbers now?  That stream-of-consciousness style seems oddly familiar....

[No Limit]

That if government has less influence (control) in the daily activities of businesses, lobbyists would be out of business.

That's a really interesting way to look at lobbyists reform, first time I honestly heard this argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by government having less control in business. Since you didn't give any specifics I will have to make some assumptions about what you mean, hopefully those assumptions are correct.

You did say below that government spening a trillion dollars a year on defense is fine with you. So the government in that one area alone (even if you were in control of what government can and can't do) would still be in control of around a trillion dollars each and every year even if you eliminated virtually every other regulation and government program. So lobbyists would still be in business. What kind of reforms would you like to see for what lobbyists can and can not do?

Where else should they come from? 

Plenty of people in this country on both the right and the left that don't have a financial stake in wall street regulations (or the lack of) but still have a very good understanding of the system.

NoThere is no such thing as overkill when it comes to keeping this country (and its allies) safe. 

There are about 300 million americans. That means for every trillion dollars the government spends each american is responsible for about $3,000 of that. Where do you think this money should come from? And since you think there is no such thing as overkill when it comes to defense what if the government decided to spend 3 trillion a year or $9,000 for each american? You okay with that?

How about the dumping of trillions into entitlements that "Average Joe" could take care of himself (ie. Social Security) much more efficiently?  (Look up Galveston, TX for an example of this)

Although medicare and social security each cost about the same as our defense spending I never thought lumping medicare and social security in with the rest of the spending is very fair. When I get a pay check every other week my pay stub shows a deduction for medicare and social security. While military and everything else is simply lumped in under taxes. Therefore these are social safety programs (especially in the case of medicare) that I pay for. This money does not belong to the federal government, eventhough the federal government treats it that way.

And no matter what fiscal policies you have there will always be people in this country that can not in fact take care of themselves. What do we do with them? Watch them die and pretend as if we dont' see it?

How about the trillions that it will cost for "government run health (death) care"?

Maybe if republicans actually brought up some valid arguments against Obama's healthcare bill instead of talking about death panels we would have a better cheaper bill. But we don't, because the debate was controlled by corporate interests. I did not support Obama's "reform".

Those "trillions" spent on defense are looking more and more like a bargain than a burden.All spending starts with the House.  Pelosi was in charge in 2007.  Bush signed TARP into law LATE 2008, and it handed out less than $300 billion, not "trillions".  According to December 2010 CBO numbers, actual costs will be less than $25 billion.  The republicans took a hit for this during the 2008 elections, just as the dims took a hit for further spending in 2010.

TARP did hand out trillions, but they did so in secret. Those trillions were handed out in the form of asset guarantees. If I have a $300,000 house that I own and the government comes in and says they will guarantee this $300,000 on my behalf that type of insurance is worth good money, even if the government doesn't charge me for it. And yes, the banks are paying back TARP. That doesn't make it a good program. You give me a few billion dollars at 0% interest and in two years I will pay all of it back to you and I'll probably be a billionare myself.

Zero and Pelosi added the "trillions" with TARP II, and budgets that borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends.The tea party came into being after Zero and the dimrats in Congress started passing so called "necessary" (read "unconstitutional") policies, not so much to help the people but to further a left-wing socialist agenda. Because tea party members are smart enough to know who is responsible for the health of their 401k plans.I haven't, but considering it is a constitutional requirement... 
People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.  What's Zero hiding?Not at all.

You know what I found out shortly after Obama came in to office? That we on the left are being played. I wonder how long before those of you on the right realize the same thing. You know that $4 trillion dollar budget Ryan proposed today? You wanna bet me that budget gets dropped by the republican leadership just as fast as it came up?

[No Limit]

I went over and visited No Limit's site.  I noticed there were no conservative voices, or even moderately R people.  

Not yet, I can't control who registers and who doesn't.

I also noticed that in the "Latest Breaking News" section on the front page, were posted stories about Fox News.  Ratings, and some kind of story about an exec on a cruise.  The world is on fire, and this is what you post as "Latest Breaking News?"  Really?  To me, that's not a serious site, and I won't be attracted to the brilliant insights posted there.  

You do realize you are asking me this question on a site which has a board dedicated to talking about members of other internet message boards, right? I assume you know about what they say about throwing stones in a glass house.

Also, you did miss some headlines, including:

- Women jailed in UAE after being drugged and raped
- Details of Afghan kill team emerge
- Libyan Woman Struggles to Tell Media of Her Rape


To name just a few. But by all means if  any time you have a story you feel is important send it over to me, I'll be happy to take a look.

[Duke Nukum]

The reason I named it "Left Underground" is because I feel like the country has moved so far to the right the ideas of the left have been completely buried in the national debate. President Obama which I'm sure many of you love to hate I think has helped make that happen. And yes, DU was obivously a bit of an inspiration for the name.

I do not mean to make the name sound like right-wing folks are not welcome, they are. But the name does try to reflect what I believe and what you should probably expect from the majority of the members there. With that said if you aren't afraid of a discussion with liberals you are more than welcome. I will not ban anyone because they disagree with me. In fact after quite a bit of thinking I still haven't been able to come up with any single reason outside of spam that I would ban someone.

At long last, can we finally agree that "left" and "right" are all on the left?  The left of the left being the international socialists while the right of the left like national socialism/fascism?

There are conservatives and there is the left.

[Duke Nukum]

Thanks. I guess the impolite thing to do right now would be to mention I never actually seen a conservative win an argument . I'm just kidding, I think I've seen it once or twice before.

By the way, just my 2 cents: you guys might want to get some new smilies, the blink eye one looks a bit creepy.

Well, if you are from the DUmmie Underground, the typical answer to conservative thought is the ban hammer.

Insanity is incapable of tolerating sanity because sanity is the biggest threat and the only antidote to insane Utopian fantasies the left loves to indulge in.

[Duke Nukum]

Didn't really take any balls. Although I've been a member of DU for probably around 6 years yesterday was the first time I heard of this site since it showed up in Google Analytics as a referral. I saw this thread and figured I should respond. I appreciate you guys letting me do that.

I think one of the biggest problems we face in this country is that people are more concerned about petty bullshit than trying to deal with actual issues this country faces.

If you want to discuss Clinton I think Clinton was a horrible president.

If you want to discuss Obama well I think he is doing a pretty shitty job.

If you want to discuss Cater we can certainly do that but the problem is I wasn't even alive back then.

Now if you want to discuss actual issues maybe that would be more useful? You said the ideas of the left are unacceptable. What ideas specifically? That lobbyists shouldn't have the influence in our government that they have? That the people making financial policy in this country shouldn't by large come from wall street? That pot should be legal? That dumping close to a trillion dollars a year in to our defense might be a bit overkill?

You know one of my biggest problems with the Tea Party for example is? The movement formed because of the bailouts supposedly. Bailouts that handed out trillions of dollars to wall street and happened during a republican administration. Have you seen the type of rage from the Tea Party that they have for Democrats ever be directed at republicans or wall street? Maybe you can find some isolated examples, but by enlarge the answer is no. I am yet to see a tea party protest outside of a wall street bank. But I have seen a lot of tea party protests about "where's the birth certificate".

You don't find that a bit odd?

We melted down the phone lines during TARP. We weren't listened to. Obama created a huge slush fund, we objected and again weren't listened to. ObamaCare? The same.

We were peaceful and clean.

Have you seen photos from WI? The left are violent and they are pigs who expect others to pick up after them. The insanity of feeling so special they are entitled to be catered to.

[Duke Nukum]

We melted down the phone lines during TARP. We weren't listened to. Obama created a huge slush fund, we objected and again weren't listened to. ObamaCare? The same.

We were peaceful and clean.

Have you seen photos from WI? The left are violent and they are pigs who expect others to pick up after them. The insanity of feeling so special they are entitled to be catered to.

Another way to put it, we Tea Partiers were fighting for our own wealth while you leftists fight for other people's money.

[diesel driver]

That's a really interesting way to look at lobbyists reform, first time I honestly heard this argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by government having less control in business. Since you didn't give any specifics I will have to make some assumptions about what you mean, hopefully those assumptions are correct.

So, you want specifics.  How's this.  EPA regulations require farmers to keep records concerning pesticide applications, such as wind speed, direction, time of day, rate of application, etc.  WHY?  Federal research done during the Clinton administration showed absolutely ZERO contamination of the food chain by pesticides.  Farmers are required to have a permit to even purchase most pesticides (back when this started, you only needed it for 3:  Paraquat, Roundup, and Diazinon) in addition to the burden of keeping records for some snot-nosed bureaucrat that wouldn't know which end of a cow to put the feed bucket under and which end needs the shovel.

You did say below that government spening a trillion dollars a year on defense is fine with you.

DOD budget for FY2010 was $664 billion, not a trillion.  Social Security is higher.

Plenty of people in this country on both the right and the left that don't have a financial stake in wall street regulations (or the lack of) but still have a very good understanding of the system.

Actually, anybody and everybody that has a 401k, an IRA, mutual accounts, life insurance, etc., has a stake in wall street.  I doubt a lot of them understand the regulations, much like the IRS doesn't understand a lot of the tax laws.

Although medicare and social security each cost about the same as our defense spending I never thought lumping medicare and social security in with the rest of the spending is very fair. When I get a pay check every other week my pay stub shows a deduction for medicare and social security.

The self-employed and some older companies list FICA taxes, which is BOTH medicare and SS.  It's only been separate on your paycheck recently, and even then, not all paychecks.

Therefore these are social safety programs (especially in the case of medicare) that I pay for. This money does not belong to the federal government, eventhough the federal government treats it that way.

Doesn't belong to the federal government, eh.  Yeah, right!    

And no matter what fiscal policies you have there will always be people in this country that can not in fact take care of themselves. What do we do with them? Watch them die and pretend as if we dont' see it?

So, scooter, how were "that can not in fact take care of themselves", taken care of before "father government"?  These people have always been with us, and were taken care of, even before there was an United States of America.  How about those that WON'T take care of themselves?  Should they have the right to vote themselves a "pay raise" with every election cycle?  
If someone "can't" take care of themselves, I can and do help them all I can.  If someone "won't" take care of themselves, I could care less.  To hell with them.

Maybe if republicans actually brought up some valid arguments against Obama's healthcare bill instead of talking about death panels we would have a better cheaper bill.

They did.  They proposed numerous amendments to the HCR bill.  None passed.

But we don't, because the debate was controlled by corporate interests. I did not support Obama's "reform".

That argument is total bullshit.  The "debate" was controlled by the Dimrats, and they were hellbent to pass whatever POS they could ram down our throats, that would give government control over 1/6th of the economy.

TARP did hand out trillions, but they did so in secret. Those trillions were handed out in the form of asset guarantees. If I have a $300,000 house that I own and the government comes in and says they will guarantee this $300,000 on my behalf that type of insurance is worth good money, even if the government doesn't charge me for it. And yes, the banks are paying back TARP. That doesn't make it a good program. You give me a few billion dollars at 0% interest and in two years I will pay all of it back to you and I'll probably be a billionare myself.

Hard to do when the TARP budget was only $300 billion, and most of that was paid back.  What you describe was the dealings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, controlled by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who were de facto underwriters for sub-prime loans.  

You know what I found out shortly after Obama came in to office? That we on the left are being played. I wonder how long before those of you on the right realize the same thing.

We on the right knew Zero was a phony during the Dim primaries.  We didn't have to elect him to find out for sure.

You know that $4 trillion dollar budget Ryan proposed today? You wanna bet me that budget gets dropped by the republican leadership just as fast as it came up?

Since it's the president's job to submit a budget, I'll assume you are referring to Ryan's proposal to CUT $4 trillion dollars in federal spending over 10 years.
 
I have no doubt it will pass in the House.  

[No Limit]

So, you want specifics.  How's this.  EPA regulations require farmers to keep records concerning pesticide applications, such as wind speed, direction, time of day, rate of application, etc.  WHY?  Federal research done during the Clinton administration showed absolutely ZERO contamination of the food chain by pesticides.  Farmers are required to have a permit to even purchase most pesticides (back when this started, you only needed it for 3:  Paraquat, Roundup, and Diazinon) in addition to the burden of keeping records for some snot-nosed bureaucrat that wouldn't know which end of a cow to put the feed bucket under and which end needs the shovel.

I gave you a specific which I assume you agree with. If you had control military spending would be up there, if not a trillion then 650 billion. That's a large amount of money and as a result lobbyists would be in business. What would you do about those lobbysits?

DOD budget for FY2010 was $664 billion, not a trillion.  Social Security is higher.

Doesn't belong to the federal government, eh.  Yeah, right!

Social security was $701 billion, Medicare & medicaid was $793 billion, and defense was $689 billion, point taken.

But again, just because the federal government treats the medicare and social security funds as their money doesn't make it so. On each paycheck I pay my taxes. Then I pay for benefits, such as medicare and social security. When these programs were designed they were supposed to be in their own fund and they still are. Just because the federal government borrowed money from those funds doesn't give them a right to default on those loans any more than they can default on loans to China.

Actually, anybody and everybody that has a 401k, an IRA, mutual accounts, life insurance, etc., has a stake in wall street.  I doubt a lot of them understand the regulations, much like the IRS doesn't understand a lot of the tax laws.

If your only stake in wall street is 401Ks, IRAs, small mutual accounts, and life insurance I think you qualify. If your stake in wall street is on the tune of millions of dollars each year I don't think you should be setting wall street policy.

So, scooter, how were "that can not in fact take care of themselves", taken care of before "father government"?  These people have always been with us, and were taken care of, even before there was an United States of America.  How about those that WON'T take care of themselves?  Should they have the right to vote themselves a "pay raise" with every election cycle? 
If someone "can't" take care of themselves, I can and do help them all I can.  If someone "won't" take care of themselves, I could care less.  To hell with them.

You might be willing to help those people that are willing to help themselves but can't. But you are only one person. And although there are many other people that probably feel the same way as you do I doubt there are enough. There are about a million people that are homeless in the US. 48 million people receive some sort of social security. Another 44 million on medicare. How many of those people do you think aren't willing to help themselves? And what should happen to them? Aside from saying screw it be specific, if they can't feed their kids then what should happen to their kids? If they can't get healthcare then should they simply be allowed to die? If they can't afford to have shelter then let them live on the streets? And how many of all these millions of people do you think try to help themselves but can't? And is there enough of good will in this country to take care of that?

They did.  They proposed numerous amendments to the HCR bill.  None passed.

The republican argument boiled down to this. Don't give healthcare to illegals. Tort reform. And private savings accounts. Would that have been cheaper than Obama's plan? Sure. Would it have saved more money over the long term? Absolutely not (unless you pick and choose when to believe the CBO). No other significant aspect of health reform was brought up by republicans.

That argument is total bullshit.  The "debate" was controlled by the Dimrats, and they were hellbent to pass whatever POS they could ram down our throats, that would give government control over 1/6th of the economy.

You're absolutely right. The fact insurance companies got a requirement to force everyone to buy insurance and the drug companies got untouched has nothing to do with corporate interests.

And if you believe the democrats they wanted a public option but didn't get it passed. So I don't see how that jives with your argument that they jammed whatever they wanted down our throats.

Hard to do when the TARP budget was only $300 billion, and most of that was paid back.  What you describe was the dealings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, controlled by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who were de facto underwriters for sub-prime loans. 

It wasn't only TARP, the fed took many actions on its own as a result of TARP and other programs passed during that time:

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/

Since it's the president's job to submit a budget, I'll assume you are referring to Ryan's proposal to CUT $4 trillion dollars in federal spending over 10 years.
 
I have no doubt it will pass in the House. 

What if it doesn't?

[ChuckJ]

You might be willing to help those people that are willing to help themselves but can't. But you are only one person. And although there are many other people that probably feel the same way as you do I doubt there are enough. There are about a million people that are homeless in the US. 48 million people receive some sort of social security. Another 44 million on medicare. How many of those people do you think aren't willing to help themselves? And what should happen to them? Aside from saying screw it be specific, if they can't feed their kids then what should happen to their kids? If they can't get healthcare then should they simply be allowed to die? If they can't afford to have shelter then let them live on the streets? And how many of all these millions of people do you think try to help themselves but can't? And is there enough of good will in this country to take care of that?

For thousands of years there have been people who could not help themselves. Likewise, for thousands of years there have been people who would not help themselves. Before the nanny-state came along those who could not help themselves were helped by others, and those who would not help themselves were left alone. Sadly, some who could not help themselves did fall through the cracks, but for the most part the system worked because the individuals doing the helping generally knew who was in need and who was just good-for-nothings.

Now the nanny-state is here. Those who will not help themselves are getting hand-outs. Those who can not help themselves aren't getting as much as they need because the pool is diluted by the "will nots", and those who in the past would have helped those who can not help themselves can't afford to because the nanny-state is stealing their money to give to the "will nots". And sadly, some who can not help themselves still fall through the cracks.

The biggest difference between then and now is that the nanny-state is stealing from people and the "will nots" are better off.

[diesel driver]

I gave you a specific which I assume you agree with. If you had control military spending would be up there, if not a trillion then 650 billion. That's a large amount of money and as a result lobbyists would be in business. What would you do about those lobbysits?

I gave you just one example of how overreaching the government is.  I fail to get YOUR connection between the military and lobbists.  Unless you're one of those who cite "military-industrial complex", at which point I have nothing more to say to you.  The military is as large as it needs to be, larger in a time of war, smaller in peace.

Social security was $701 billion, Medicare & medicaid was $793 billion, and defense was $689 billion, point taken.

But again, just because the federal government treats the medicare and social security funds as their money doesn't make it so. On each paycheck I pay my taxes. Then I pay for benefits, such as medicare and social security.

What if I don't WANT those benefits?  What if I want to fund my OWN retirement, etc.?  I mentioned Galveston, TX, a few posts back.  Apparently, you didn't bother to look.  Galveston found a loophole in the Social Security law back in the 1980's, and opted out of having to pay into it.  Instead, they used THE SAME AMOUNT they would have paid SS to fund city workers retirements.  Today, those workers are retiring and are receiving 2-3 times what they would under SS, and as a bonus, the fund is part of their estates.  This means that their families (or whoever) receive the balance of their retirement.  SS doesn't do that.

When these programs were designed they were supposed to be in their own fund and they still are. Just because the federal government borrowed money from those funds doesn't give them a right to default on those loans any more than they can default on loans to China.

Then you should tell that to LBJ and the Dims back in 1969, because that's when they counted SS in with the rest of the revenue the government receives.  You actually made MY point, that is, if government didn't have the money to begin with, they wouldn't have "borrowed" it.  There is no SS trust fund, never has been, never will be.

If your only stake in wall street is 401Ks, IRAs, small mutual accounts, and life insurance I think you qualify. If your stake in wall street is on the tune of millions of dollars each year I don't think you should be setting wall street policy.

Why not?  Why should "wall street policy" be set by a bureaucrat?  Again, who else would better know what "wall street policy" should be?

You might be willing to help those people that are willing to help themselves but can't. But you are only one person. And although there are many other people that probably feel the same way as you do I doubt there are enough. There are about a million people that are homeless in the US. 48 million people receive some sort of social security. Another 44 million on medicare. How many of those people do you think aren't willing to help themselves? And what should happen to them? Aside from saying screw it be specific, if they can't feed their kids then what should happen to their kids? If they can't get healthcare then should they simply be allowed to die? If they can't afford to have shelter then let them live on the streets? And how many of all these millions of people do you think try to help themselves but can't? And is there enough of good will in this country to take care of that?

Government is the most expensive, least efficient way to do it.  The government sucks about 20% of GDP out of the economy.  What if it was only 10%?  How much money would that free up for private donations?  BTW, there is no "IF" about getting healthcare.  SS was never intended to be a "retirement" account.  Even FDR stated as much.  But it did evolve into one of FDR's biggest fears:  A government "vote buying" scheme.

The republican argument boiled down to this. Don't give healthcare to illegals. Tort reform. And private savings accounts. Would that have been cheaper than Obama's plan?

Oh, HELL YEAH!
Outside of emergency care, no healthcare for illegals.  Why should I be forced to pay for the healthcare for someone who is not a citizen, but a criminal as well?  (Don't try the "criminals get healthcare too" argument.  They are also "wards of the state".  Illegals are not.)
Why do you think hospitals in California are going broke?  Doctors are leaving medicine, mainly because of insurance premiums.  Tort reform would limit payments to plaintiffs in lawsuits, therefore lowering malpractice insurance premiums for doctors, therefore lowering health care costs.  MSA's give people the option to CHOOSE just how to provide for their own healthcare, shop around, just like with their car insurance, house insurance, etc.

Sure. Would it have saved more money over the long term? Absolutely not (unless you pick and choose when to believe the CBO). No other significant aspect of health reform was brought up by republicans.
You're absolutely right. The fact insurance companies got a requirement to force everyone to buy insurance and the drug companies got untouched has nothing to do with corporate interests.

If you believe that load of BS, then you just made my point in the previous post.  MSA's would take the "power" from "Big Insurance" and give it to the people.  I'm sure this "republican" aspect of HCR could be done in well under 2,700+ pages.

And if you believe the democrats they wanted a public option but didn't get it passed. So I don't see how that jives with your argument that they jammed whatever they wanted down our throats.  

Again, 2,700+ pages, total dim majorities, passed on Christmas Eve, "deem to pass" rule changes.  Shall I continue?  It's all about power and control.  You now have a bunch of lawyers that can tell doctors how to practice medicine.  Nice idea, huh.

It wasn't only TARP, the fed took many actions on its own as a result of TARP and other programs passed during that time:

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/

Many that Zero could have changed or eliminated.  He didn't, only passed TARP II.

What if it doesn't?

Then it doesn't.  
 

Now if you will excuse me, I have a funeral to attend.

[Rebel]

The reason I named it "Left Underground" is because I feel like the country has moved so far to the right ...

When 40% of Americans consider themselves as conservative, and 35% moderate, that shouldn't take a PhD. Only 21% of the most whacked-out Socialists consider themselves liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx


Also, "so far to the right"? Can you name one f'n thing the Tea Party, or conservatives in general, are proposing that doesn't fall in line with the U.S. Constitution and our founders' intent?

[Karin]

Without diluting Rebel's question immediately above, which I would like No Limit to answer, may I just point out one thing?

No other significant aspect of health reform was brought up by republicans.

Republicans were essentially locked out of the room during the creation of this monster.  Their ideas were not allowed, not welcome. 
Oh the BTW, the death panels were real.  If not, why were they removed, then put back in on the sly? 

[No Limit]

I gave you just one example of how overreaching the government is.  I fail to get YOUR connection between the military and lobbists.  Unless you're one of those who cite "military-industrial complex", at which point I have nothing more to say to you.  The military is as large as it needs to be, larger in a time of war, smaller in peace.

You really don't get the connection between lobbyists and the military? Really? And the whole "I have nothing more to say to you" claim I always found pretty lame.

The fact is that out of the 650 billion the military spends a large majority of that money goes to private business. Now, I assume you aren't for socializing military production, correct me if I'm wrong. And because of that lobbyists will have a huge interest in how the government hands out their contracts and what military programs and operations the military engages in.

Again, what rules would you have for what lobbyists could and could not do in this case? Why is this such a hard question for you to answer?

What if I don't WANT those benefits?  What if I want to fund my OWN retirement, etc.?  I mentioned Galveston, TX, a few posts back.  Apparently, you didn't bother to look.  Galveston found a loophole in the Social Security law back in the 1980's, and opted out of having to pay into it.  Instead, they used THE SAME AMOUNT they would have paid SS to fund city workers retirements.  Today, those workers are retiring and are receiving 2-3 times what they would under SS, and as a bonus, the fund is part of their estates.  This means that their families (or whoever) receive the balance of their retirement.  SS doesn't do that.

The fact is you can't opt out of those benefits and whether or not that is a good idea is certainly a debatable issue since I don't think you should have a right to opt-out. But again, my point here is that people have been paying in to social security and medicare for decades. We have all been paying for a benefit when we paid in to those programs. This money does not belong to the federal government and never has.

The Galveston plan still forces you to buy social security type insurance eventhough it isn't part of social security but instead a individual retirement package. Are you okay with that?

Then you should tell that to LBJ and the Dims back in 1969, because that's when they counted SS in with the rest of the revenue the government receives.  You actually made MY point, that is, if government didn't have the money to begin with, they wouldn't have "borrowed" it.  There is no SS trust fund, never has been, never will be.

Government is made up of people we vote for. Remember when Al Gore proposed a lock box? What did you think of that idea?

Why not?  Why should "wall street policy" be set by a bureaucrat?  Again, who else would better know what "wall street policy" should be?

Because every time we see an example of people that control regulations and policy having a financial stake in those very same regulations and policies have turned out disastrous. Which should be no surprise to anyone, it should be totally expected and obvious. If I make millions of dollars in wall street and you put me in charge of regulating wall street you really think I'm going to do what is right for the country and not what's right for my own bank account? I"m certainly not that naive.

Government is the most expensive, least efficient way to do it.  The government sucks about 20% of GDP out of the economy.  What if it was only 10%?  How much money would that free up for private donations?  BTW, there is no "IF" about getting healthcare.  SS was never intended to be a "retirement" account.  Even FDR stated as much.  But it did evolve into one of FDR's biggest fears:  A government "vote buying" scheme.

What do you mean about there is no "if" about healthcare. There are many people in this country that can't afford or can't get healthcare from private sources. Healthcare isn't cheap. Nor are pre-existing conditions something you control. What would you do about those people?

And I just don't buy the idea that if the government gives you a tax break everyone is going to go out and donate that extra money to help people.

Let me also repeat one more time what I said above. 1 million homeless. 48 million on social security. And 44 million on medicare. How many of those people do you think can help themselves but simply wont. How many do you think want to help themselves but can't. This is an important question if we are going to have a serious discussion about what gap charities can fill.

Oh, HELL YEAH!
Outside of emergency care, no healthcare for illegals.  Why should I be forced to pay for the healthcare for someone who is not a citizen, but a criminal as well?  (Don't try the "criminals get healthcare too" argument.  They are also "wards of the state".  Illegals are not.)
Why do you think hospitals in California are going broke?  Doctors are leaving medicine, mainly because of insurance premiums.  Tort reform would limit payments to plaintiffs in lawsuits, therefore lowering malpractice insurance premiums for doctors, therefore lowering health care costs.  MSA's give people the option to CHOOSE just how to provide for their own healthcare, shop around, just like with their car insurance, house insurance, etc.

So you just agreed with me, the only things republicans proposed were no healthcare for illegals, tort reform, and private savings accounts.

Do I think illegals should get healthcare that they don't pay for? No. Do I think if a illegal shows up in a emergency room with a stab wound but no insurance should we treat him? yes, I think so. Do you disagree?

How much would tort reform save you think? The CBO says about 3%, what do you think and what do you base that on?

Personal medical saving accounts would not work for most average americans, the math doesn't add up. Half of the households in this country live on an income under $50,000 a year. If you ignore taxes that means half of the households in this country lives under $4,000 a month with each household in that category having about 2.5 people. Then half those people live under $25,000 a year which is under $2,000 a month. How much money each month do you think these households would have to put in to their savings account each month? If you do $500 each month (what I pay for rent) that's $6,000 a year. Is $6,000 a year enough to provide healthcare for 2.5 people for their entire life? How about $12,000 a year, is that enough when you consider how your healhtcare costs increase as you get older? How much do you think you would pay a year if you had no coverage and were 65 years old? A simple doctor check up is a couple hundred bucks. And don't get me started on medication.

If you believe that load of BS, then you just made my point in the previous post.  MSA's would take the "power" from "Big Insurance" and give it to the people.  I'm sure this "republican" aspect of HCR could be done in well under 2,700+ pages.

I feel like you keep drifting to different ideas. Let me remind you that I said this debate was controlled by corporate interests and you said BS to that. I reminded you that insurance companies are getting a requirement that everyone buy their product while drug companies got a deal where no other country can compete with them. Do you think corporate interests had nothing to do with that?

Again, 2,700+ pages, total dim majorities, passed on Christmas Eve, "deem to pass" rule changes.  Shall I continue?  It's all about power and control.  You now have a bunch of lawyers that can tell doctors how to practice medicine.  Nice idea, huh.

Again, didn't answer the question. You said the democrats were able to cram anything they wanted down our throats. The democrats wanted a public option (atleast thats what they claimed) but didn't get it. How does that jive with your argument that they got everything they wanted?

Many that Zero could have changed or eliminated.  He didn't, only passed TARP II.

And your point is? As I said above, the BUsh administration handed out trillions of dollars to banks and asked almost nothing in return. Yes, Obama continued those policies.

Yet you don't seem to be very angry at the people that got those trillions of dollars with no strings attached. In fact you think those same people making policy is a swell idea. Why is that?

Then it doesn't. 

You again miss the point. The republicans are playing you guys, I'm just wondering how long before you realize that. Even if this passes the house they can hold up other budgets until the senate atleast meets them half way. But they won't do that, and you as a conservative that says the government is about to fall off a cliff is okay with that?

[Carl]

You do realize that the CBOs report on O care was based on that Congress telling them they must use the figures and assumptions it said were going to be even though all knew they were skewed to downright false.

[No Limit]

So you only believe the CBO when it fits your agenda? Plus I am not talking about the CBO number for healthcare. I am talking about what the CBO said tort reform would do, which is lower costs about 3%. If you disagree what number do you think tort reform would drop cost and what are you basing that on?

[Carl]

So you only believe the CBO when it fits your agenda? Plus I am not talking about the CBO number for healthcare. I am talking about what the CBO said tort reform would do, which is lower costs about 3%. If you disagree what number do you think tort reform would drop cost and what are you basing that on?

That isn`t what I said...the CBO scored O care by Congress directing them to accept the figures it provided as fact even though many were ludicrous such as the one about how they were going to save 500 billion from Medicare by ending "waste"
Do some actual research,Google is your friend.

[dandi]

I would first of all like to commend you for registering here and posting your thoughts.  I also wish you the best of luck with your new site.  Your idea was tried in the past (Neutral Underground) and failed because left leaning mods showed favoritism to one side and drove most of the posters away.  I indeed hope that yours takes the lessons learned from NU and does better.  FWIW, you can always post here as well.

You know what I found out shortly after Obama came in to office? That we on the left are being played.

Interesting. 

We on the right knew what a slick assed huckster he was a year and a half before he was elected.  I thought you guys were smarter than us?

I wonder how long before those of you on the right realize the same thing.

What, that we're being played for suckers like President Obama and the Democrats played you? 

I doubt that. 

Unlike the left, we on the right are suspicious of any politician and as such (as you may or may not have noticed) we have a tendency to watch them closely and shitcan them when they don't perform up to our standards.  Unlike leftists, we don't look at bad behavior as being a resume enhancer.

Also, unlike the left, we don't labor under the illusion that any politician "cares" for us.  We would rather they "care" about the rule of law, the security and safety of the country (as mandated by the Constitution), and their leadership abilities on the world stage.  I personally don't want a faceless bureaucrat or elected representative to "care" about me, I want them to keep the government out of my way as our Founding Fathers intended.