I admire these people, they have so much faith they can guarantee, no matter what, they will never need a doctor, EVER. My hat is off to these people and it makes me feel like I just don’t have enough resolve… because if I had a massive injury, or illness, I would want medical care!
So how does this work? Say one of these radical Christians gets hit by a car and is bleeding to death on the side of the road, when the ambulance gets there they say “no thanks, God has got a plan for me to die in this ditch, be on your way now”. Otherwise, if they don’t have insurance all of us that do will be paying for their emergency care.
Believe it or not according to The Urban Institute between 12%-17% of the US population NEVER receive professional medical care during their lifetime. The same study concluded 25% of the uninsured pay out of pocket and in full for all their medical care. 84% of 20-somethings who are uninsured will buy insurance buy the age of 36. The hospitals that must, by law, treat the uninsured in emergencies cases only do so as a condition of receive BILLIONS a year in government subsidies. There are some hospitals that opt out and are not required to treat the uninsured. Those who do aren’t exactly giving away free care. The term “freeloader” is a liberal talking point, a buzz word, a headline, but the fact is the uninsured are NOT the problem, they are not the reason for high health care costs.
Why does the title of this article say “Another Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Healthcare Mandate”? To the contrary, the dichotomy is striking, and is closely correlated to whether the judge was nominated by a Democrat or Republican.
Stating “another” suggest its overwhelmingly one-sided, which it is not. Please avoid unnecessary editorializing in the future.
Too bad that our Courts including the Supreme Court have become political activists.
“Kessler is the third Democratic-appointed judge to dismiss a challenge, while two Republican-appointed judges have ruled part or all of the law unconstitutional. Kessler wrote that the Supreme Court will need to settle the constitutional issues.”
They will settle it based on who appointed them. If that is not progressive political thinking I do not know what is. What ever happened to reading the Constitution with a Websters dictionary and figuring out what it says? It really is that easy!
Our Constitution was so perfect as written we’ve only had to amend it 27 times. We should repeal all the amendments and go back to the original. No voting rights for women, minorities, prohibition…oh wait that was repealed, no presidential term limits etc. etc. etc.
The key word in your statement was amendment. If a group of people do not agree with the Constitution they can put forth an amendment. But the progressive liberals know that the public does not want Socialism, A nanny state and would not approve of the overbearing government that the progressives want. So what do they do appoint liberal activist judges to the Supreme Court when elected and therefore allow the Constitution to be stretched and bastardized to fit their agenda. I can not wait to read the opinions of Obama appointed judges. LOL….
The document is perfect! If you dont like it amend it!
Every other civilized country has universal health care.
It’s like national defence, roads and borders, it’s just something any government should do, to make sure that any person withing the borders gets whatever treatment they need.
I do care if the person in front of me in line is here illegally, but unless we’re going to deport them in the next 15 minutes please make sure that they can go to any hospital for anything and get treated if they are going to be sharing my air and touching the same surfaces.
We should just nationalize all healthcare, treat doctors, nurses, administrators and researchers as public employees and make it illegal to charge for any providing of medical services.
I don’t see any consideration for how much this costs, so you can’t be taken seriously. Have you considered the cost of overuse when everything is “free”. And, by the way, who pays for free, and how much free income would you want to devote to this utopian concept. By the way, how about free housing, free food, free clothing, free transportation, free vacations. Don’t we need all of these as much as free healhcare.
Maybe we can get China to give us free interest on our 14 Trillion dollar debt.
We do Eric. It’s called Medicaid. And there are probably more illegal’s on it then US citizens. These people have been abusing the “system” for decades and they know “the ropes” of how to do it too.
You mean socialize healthcare, not nationalize healthcare. Nationally, we already have it.
Sorry, Xena, you’re incorrect. You can’t get Medicaid unless you have a VALID social security number. This is just one more myth perpetuated by the right wing radicals to try to support an unsupportable position.
W.R.,your are right to degree. The children of illegals ARE eligible for Medicaid. As far as the cost of treatment, everyone in the US is entitled to emergency room treatment, so that is where the illegal expense comes in and at a very high cost.
Let’s also not forget that the government is not that good at checking to see if the card is valid and fits the person, so identity theft also is possible.
Actually, the gov’t is very good at checking SS numbers for validity.
Texas recently did a study to determine the net impact of the cost of taking care of illegals.
They do pay into SS (the feds DON’T verify those numbers!), but since their numbers are phony, they can never collect. They do pay taxes (again, the numbers aren’t checked) but can’t collect many of the benefits provided.
The Texas study found illegals actually pay more into the system than they can take out.
And, I checked, children of illegals cannot collect under Medicaid. A valid SS number and verification of qualifing by state officials are a pretty good barrier.
Anyone can be treated at the emergency room, regardless of status, and that is a heavy burden but, as the Texas study shows, the illegals pay their way.
And, one final thing to keep in mind, Texas was trying to prove that illegals were a significant burden, not a benefit. Even though the study didn’t prove the point they were trying to make, they at least had the honesty to disclose the fact.
February 28, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Tom says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually, a child born in the US is a US citizen and thus may apply and receive a SS #.
February 28, 2011 at 5:30 pm
temblor says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
But, Tom, that’s not what your statement implies, you are implying that children not born here are eligible for Medicade. Qualifying it better would have clarified everything up front.
Children NOT born here are not eligible for Medicaid.
March 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm
xena says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Eric, and just how many social security numbers ARE valid?? Humm? I just found out that my niece’s SS was stolen when she was 2 years old.. She’s 19 now and my sister is having a devil of a time getting this corrected. Wake up Eric. The person who is using her SS has a Hispanic name and obviously known’s how to work the system. Valid SS number, give me a break. And anyone out there with children, you should run a credit report NOW! Before your children are trying to apply for credit. Valid SS numbers, you make me laugh Eric.
Sorry Eric, I ment to send this to W R Lockhart: W R, and just how many social security numbers ARE valid?? Humm? I just found out that my niece’s SS was stolen when she was 2 years old.. She’s 19 now and my sister is having a devil of a time getting this corrected. Wake up Eric. The person who is using her SS has a Hispanic name and obviously known’s how to work the system. Valid SS number, give me a break. And anyone out there with children, you should run a credit report NOW! Before your children are trying to apply for credit. Valid SS numbers, you make me laugh Lockheart.. Get YOUR facts stright OR say nothing at all!!
Xena, you’re confusing things. Stolen doesn’t mean it’s an invalid number. And you should always check your and your children’s credit reports (all three) at least once a year (Federal Law says you get a free copy of each once a year). Waiting 17 years to first check your niece’s credit report is a tad too long.
Get your apples and oranges straight or don’t say anything at all!
February 24, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Proud Conservative says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Where are you from Eric, Great Britain or Canada? Nationalized medicine has been an abysmal failure everywhere it has been tried. Why do you think Great Britain has laid off a large part of their healthcare workers? It is too expensive for them, provides poor care and people die before they can get operations. Many come to the US for their operations or treatments. Why is that? If we make the doctors and nurses public employees, we will be dealing with the unions again and the costs will be 30-40% higher. Not a pleasant prospect.
Another myth perpetuated by the right wing radicals. Talk to anyone living in Canada or England. They very much like their system. Yes, their are problems with it, but they have good access to whatever care they need. As is the case here, some care is rationed or restricted but that’s because of rational restrictions on what is necessary or feasible.
And, by the way, everyone please note: We now have death panels, courtesy of right wing Republicans (Arizona, for those who don’t actually keep up).
W.R. You can talk to the Canadians at the hospitals in Florida. If it is so good, why then did Canadian premier, Danny Williams of Newfoundland, seek treatment last year in the US.
I have relatives in England and they don’t seem to share your “anyone” standard.
Funny, how normally a compassionate Demo becomes a “rationer”. Maybe when it comes down to saving both arms due to a disease that has a cure, you can rationalize with the patient that you have decided that you have only enough money to save one. And being a gratious and compassonate man, you let him pick.
I actually talk to numerous friends who live in Canada and England.
February 28, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Sarah says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
How many people go to Canada from the US to get their healthcare?
How many of the best medical schools are in Canada or England?
Not too many right? I didnt think so!
February 24, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Lu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So the key sentence in this article is: “She also said that anyone who objects to having health care for religious reasons can choose to pay the penalty instead…” Isn’t that now the “American Way”, just keep passing laws and whoever does not want to abide by them just pay the fine. (I.E.:mandatroy auto insurance, no insurance, pay the fine. Mandatory snow cleaning of your property- not done, just pay the fine. Mandatory health inurance, not purchased, just pay the fine
Since Obama is trying to be more like Reagan I think he should follow Judge Vinson’s ruling. Obama’s defense is that the law is legal because of the commerce clause in the Constitution. However the commerce clause does nothing of the sort. I would advise reading Judge Vinson’s summary of his ruling or Landmark Legal Foundation’s statements about the Virginia lawsuit.
What planet is she on? sure isn’t ours. It would have been nice had all Americans had the real opportunity to read this mound of whatever came off the presses but no, it was like wolves lurking in he night to get something passed while they thought we were all sleeping, unfortunately many were I’m afraid – the Senate, Congress etc…all had the nose ring and followed you know who!! This entire matter is so disappointing and it’s only going to cost the American Citizens – wake up for pity sakes!
In all of my 62 years on this earth it has been understood that the Government has the power to tax. I beleive that the Supreme Court will rule the Government does not have the power under the Constitution of these United States to mandate all of it’s citizens purchase a product or face a fine or penalty. If the constitution is violated it will be the beginning of the end of this free nation. It will also bring into question what responsibilites we have as citizens and veterans to protect this time honored document. We find it difficult to keep young people insured for auto insurance. Mandated health premiums will certainly be a farce. We need some real world legislators and leaders in this country!
Get over yourself Maxine. You too are self serving. It is already costing the DOCUMENTED TAX PAYING CITIZENS whether or not the health care plan is enforced! Who do you think is footing the bill for the uninsured people who live in this country legally or illegally? I know I am I can see what is not in my paycheck each week!
This needs to be decided soon before the American public catches on to cases such as 13 month old Joseph Maraachli, who is being prevented from receiving a tracheotomy so he can go home to die. The ruling, made by the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board, will raise the issue of “death panels” to new heights. Did I say “death panels”, I meant the “you are too expensive to keep alive panel”. I don’t want to be politically incorrect. This board won’t even allow the child to go to Michigan for evaluation. Regardless, the family is prevented from taking this child home to die since it would be cheaper to not have the trach and stay in the hospital so he can die more quickly. The panel felt that the parents were “blinded by love” and therefore couldn’t make proper choices. Now, we can’t have that can we, at least in the Canadian single payer system.
See below posted by Watcher in response to this posting. Seems Tom left out a few pertinent facts. Wonder why?
Watcher says:
Like or Dislike:
8
11Tom
This has NOTHING to do with deaqth panels and too expensive to keep alive. Get your facts straight before you start positing demons.
and if this baby, whose own parents say they know he will not survive and who agree he is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery….and who also had another child die of the same neurpoligical disease,is transported to the Detroit hospital, who do you think will pay that bill? you are the one so concerned about costs…seems you talk out of two sides of your mouth. You harahgue about costs, but yet when you get an opportunity to spread fear about the totally imaginary death panels, you forget all about it.
In this case, why the hospital didn’t do the trach and get the parents to sign a release and let them take the baby home is beyond me…but it was NOT for the reasons about which you are fulminating.
Temblor, you are not just shaky on your facts but quakey. If you don’t think that cost was a consideration then you are just not thinking. The trach was not done as an unnecessary expense for a child with a “fatal” disease. The parents wanted a trach to be sure the child did not suffer from fluid build up etc while he was in the process of leaving this world. You may consider the “unnecessary” to mean medically unnecessry but no one can overlook the potential cost factor behind the Board’s decision. In any event, it points to the involvement of governmnent functionaries in the process, one that should involve honoring the parent’s request if at all possible.
You are right Sarah. Everything is politicized in this country. We have Dem/Liberal judges saying the law is constitutional and Rep/Conservative judges saying it is not. This 2,700 page monstrocity speaks volumes about how bad it is and how unconstitutional it is. Libs don’t want to live by the Constitution and view it as a living document that doesn’t mean what it says and they know best for the folks. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will make the determination and soon that the bill needs to be thrown out.
Ah, how easily they forget. The Administration didn’t write the bill, Congress did. It’s a monstrosity because, instead of keeping it simple and straightforward, every Congressman insisted amendments be made before they would vote for it, amendments which, most of the time, had nothing to do with healthcare (there are plenty of “bridges to nowhere” buried in there. It became so convoluted because virtually every congressperson had to be bought off before they would vote for it, even if they agreed with the premise – they all exacted their price whether it was good for the country or not.
Obama actually wanted a bill very similar to the one the Bushes tried to get passed. Nice, simple, straightforward.
I agree with Sarah…what a shame the courts are now so political, even going back to the Supreme Court decision in 2000 that stole the election from Gore! Pity, pity, Sarah.
Aren’t you glad that the election was stolen, or we would have been saddled with Green Gore, the global warming warrior. By the way, you may have missed the post election recount done by three newspapers who looked at the entire state and Bush would have one in a recount of the entire state rather than just the Dade county cherry picked recount requested by Gore. I will concede that Gore won the popular vote, but again, the electoral college saved us from Tipper’s ex.
Watcher, I really am not sure about the Gore Bush election of 2000. It really was the first time the Supreme Court had to deal with a Constitutional crisis involving the election of a President. That really could be a case where the Supreme Court was over zellous and ruled to soon. I think they were very concerned it would turn into a constitutional crisis and felt compelled to rule quickly. I would say the 2004 election there was no doubt about that outcome. I still wanted to see someone ask John Kerry, Why the long face?
I think everyone would agree that this Country would be so better off if we didnt take into consideration someones political affiliation when they were appointed and we didnt know how they would rule except that we all knew that they would be a non biased, non partial judge of facts using logic and reason .
The Supreme Court actually correctly interpreted the election laws of the State of Florida. Everyone forgets that. They couldn’t have done it any other way.
The law states that an election MUST be certified within so many days. All the BS with “hanging chads” etc. is what ate up all the time.
Not Surprised…I find it so humorous when the conservatives blast the libs for over reaching the consititution, and then go out and want to strip others of their “rights”…re: abortion, union organizing, religious freedoms. As always, one man’s poison is another man’s nectar.
Wonder why all the armchair constitutional scholars on these blogs all appear to be conservative. Sounds like a convenient excuse (and a reach) to me to claim this bill is not consititutional. When argument fails, wrap self in a.) flag b.) Consititution c.) and believe selves only TRUE patriots in the land!
Watcher, I think you will find that conservatives don’t have a problem with private sector unions but can differentiate between them and public sector worker unions. Most thinking Americans should question why we have Pubs in the first place. There only function is to lobby their neighbors (taxpayers represented by politicians) for pay and benefits. Work conditions etc are not an issue since taxpayers are not the “robber barons” of old. So let’s look at the conflict of a Pub union asking a Politicians who they contributed to and got elected to give them what they want. The current debate with Pub is how to tip the symbiotic relationship back to the taxpayers. It is just that simple.
Watcher, You make the perfect case against the libs. The reason why the “armchair constitutional scholars” are Conservative is because the Progressive Democrats are trampling all over the Constiution or completely disregarding it to push their agenda. This country had very brilliant founding fathers who saw the dangers of big government and what it would bring and sought to have a limited government which is best for a free enterprise system. These Progressive ideas born a hundred years ago have been advanced in recent years and they seek to control every aspect of our lives and tax and spend until the country goes broke. Wake up and smell the coffee. The country is broke, many of the states, cities, counties, school districts are broke and the Progressives still want the public dole to continue with ever higher costs to the citizen/taxpayers. This is the tipping point and it cannot continue. If the Progressives were true patriots, they would back off their demands, but it will be a fight to the finish and I think their crowd is losing now, particulary after the last election.
Watcher,
Where in the constitution is the right for workers to organize, abortion (kill unborn babies) Again, its a liberal ruling not in the Constitution or any of its amendments. The reason conservatives talk about the Constitution is that liberals all wish the Constitution didnt exsist.
I am still waiting to see MSNBC, CNN, ABC,NBC, CBS. Ask a democrat about the threatning of violence, Nazi signs, Target bulls eye over a picture of the WI governor. and why not go ahead and call them racists too… Just for good measure. How does that feel?
Guys, help me understand. I have tried to find in the constitution outlining the existence of Medicare and Social Security, and I just can’t find it. Maybe we should scrap these programs too? Why should my tax dollars be supporting old people? After-all, we need a constitutional reason for everything. Right?
This has NOTHING to do with deaqth panels and too expensive to keep alive. Get your facts straight before you start positing demons.
and if this baby, whose own parents say they know he will not survive and who agree he is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery….and who also had another child die of the same neurpoligical disease,is transported to the Detroit hospital, who do you think will pay that bill? you are the one so concerned about costs…seems you talk out of two sides of your mouth. You harahgue about costs, but yet when you get an opportunity to spread fear about the totally imaginary death panels, you forget all about it.
In this case, why the hospital didn’t do the trach and get the parents to sign a release and let them take the baby home is beyond me…but it was NOT for the reasons about which you are fulminating.
Watcher, the choice is easy, freedom and respect for life first, then we can address costs in a conpassionate way. Conservatives do think with both lobes. And so, how do you characterize the involvement of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board? And, if you don’t know their motivation, how is it you raise the issue of cost?
Very interesting, Tom, thanks for the additional information. The arguments against universal care all seem to be distorted by leaving out very important facts. Just another case of the right wing conservatives changing the “facts” to fit their argument.
Good post Tom. I think Conservatives have big issues with all unions who are doing great damage to our economy and society. They have the entitlement mentality and expect the rest of us to continue to fund their exhorbitant salary and benefit packages on an ever increasing spiral. One thing they forgot is that the larder is bare now. We have reached the tipping point and the country and states are now broke. We are not competitive now and union labor is not productive to compete with the world. It really doesn’t matter whether it is public or private.
I cannot help but find it ironic the feds leave it to the states as to whether we can mandate a helmet is worn while riding a motorcycle, and many states do not require such safety equipment be used on the basis of personal freedom, while the same folks who have no problem there will mandate that all must buy into health insurance regardless of whether they want it or not.
Was that really Obama’s justice department using the argument: “we’re ahead 3-2 now”? I hate to say it, but that equates perfectly with Eric Holder’s understanding of constitutional law…interesting, but if we were to use the 3-2 method, wouldn’t that equate to a dismissal in a civil case and an equital in a criminal case?
The hidden agenda of the Tea party and GOP is now being revealed: it was supposed to be about the Benjamins, but has turned much more ugly, with union busting, etc.
You wonder why you might need public unions? I will tell you: the state legislators in most states have consistently robbed or not funded their portion of the benefits package they promised. Also, when govt coffers are flush, it should be reasonably assumed that public unions may bargain to receive a share of the abundance…that’s what unions do.
Unfortunately, instead of watchdogging the funds legislators should have deposited into the benefits funds, unions pressed for increased benefits, and self seeking politicians fed this. Because the system was misused, is no reason to abandon the system.
And, by the way, where is the rest of the debate on controlling costs and reducing deficits? Where is the INCREASE TAXES part? Why is it always services to those that need them most or services that the middle class depends on (Pell grants, adequate teachers, extracurricular activites, etc., etc., etc.) that fall under the GOP chopping block while they absolutely ignore the rest of the equation…raise taxes.
If what is happening in WI is a harbinger of the future under GOP/TP rule, I wonder how long it will be before McCarthyism begins anew.
You who are so fond of spoouting statistics: what about the dwindling middle class? What about the concentration of wealth in the hands of the very rich few? What about preserving a viable and hopeful middle class that is the backbone of our democracy? Why do you statistic spouters never mention those stats also….or are those stats part of the world Progressive conspiracy as you chose to distort other facts?
The Constitution cuts both ways. And, the blogger that pointed out the many amendments, is correct; if you want to go back to the 1700’s, shall we reinstitute slavery? Prevent non property owners from voting? End civil rights? GET REAL
TRUST ME on this: the GOP did NOT get a mandate in 2010 to do what they are now starting to do. They are taking the disaffected with both parties vote as a mandate….and they are WRONG. 2012 will be more interesting than I originally anticipated…
Actually watcher, it was the hidden agenda of the Progressive Socialists that was revealed. After the Tea Party woke America up from its slumber and found out what Obama and his minions were up to, the voters gave him and his followers in Congress a “shellacking”. The Tea Party did the country a great service to disrupt the march towards a Socialistic society. The Wisconsin troubles have revealed how bad the unions and their cushy contracts are and how they are bankrupting most states that have big union presence. By the time the dust clears, it may result in every state being right to work states. These rust belt states have lost millions of jobs in the past 20 years. People have left them to go south to find jobs. Union’s are the scourge on the economy and need to be reduced or eliminated in this modern society.
Watcher: first of all, let me express you have real feelings and opinions, but you were able to avoid calling names, although the scare comment about McCarthyism comes close, but you didn’t call us Nazis, teabaggers, etc. So kudos to you for being able to discuss what you believe without calling names.
On some points we agree, many state legislatures and/or governors have robbed pension plans; as a former resident of the great state of Illinois, I can tell you that is 100% correct. I can also identify the number one culprit: Rod Blagojevich. He took from pension funds, he took what he called ‘excess taxes’ that came in to the highway fund and paid for his idea of utopia…he also failed to pay doctors, hospitals, schools, etc; now Illinois is billions in the red.
I grew up in a union family and recall many spirited discussions with my father about union waste; while he supported unions he agreed on almost every point. The problem is, unions have gone hand in hand with poor management in putting businesses ‘out of business’; GM is a perfect example; it includes both the ‘fatcats’ many disparage, and also the blinded union braintrust that would break the company’s back to get their pound of flesh even if it put them out of business; if it wasn’t for major govt intervention, we’d only have one domestic auto producer left, and that’s still questionable when you consider the number of foreign produced models created by our domestic producers.
I do not believe you can force someone to buy a product of commerce they choose not to buy. If the govt takes over all medical care, they will have the right to impose a tax on all who can pay to run it, but please please please do not do that. When we share the horror stories of the Canadian and British systems, we are not lying.
I believe smaller govt is what allowed this country to grow into what it was meant to be. I’d love to give it a chance to prove American excellence again. I have no war with unions, but even the great leaders of the liberal past did not want collective bargaining powers to go to govt employees nor teachers. When was the last time we saw a teachers union come out in favor of something that actually taught one more child? I don’t know about you, but I work in a position where I am graded upon my own production and the production of my subordinates. If they fail, I fail. It doesn’t work that way in a teachers union.
I’m not for banning unions; many have run their course, but if people want collective bargaining, they can request it and if enough agree, they can unionize. I also respect the right of the employer to terminate all employees who come to such an agreement. It’s a risk for both sides. I do not see where unions for public entities have been forced to live within their means, however. Considering the conflicts of interest that occur with various elected parties, that alone makes the point collective bargaining for jobs that rely on elected govt official ultimately will lead to mismanagement at a minimum and corruption at the worst.
First, let me clue you in on the fact that government surpluses are not “profits” to be shared with Public sector unions. A surplus is owned by the taxpayers and should be returned, not spent. You can’t seem to distinguish between the two types of unioins, so let me help you. Private sector unions look for a share of the profits made from their work; public sector workers DO NOT produce a profit with their hard work, rather they relying on tax dollars for their pay. Taxpayers are not Corporate Executives; nor are they corporate conglomerates dishes out low pay to increase profits or forcing employees to work in poor environments. Public sector worker are valued on the service they provide to the taxpayer, not on the profits they return to a business owner. There is no correlation between the two in this fundemental equation. The only reason that public sector unions exist it to feed political contributions so unions can exert power for their non union ideological positions AND also to give the unions control over vasts sums of money for medical plans etc which they can use to, use guessed it, develop profits or pay their executive committee members (Wisc teachers had their own insurance company). I think you should re-think your union allegiance and look at whether big unions are in it for the little guy or in it for big union management.
Second, politicians guaranteed public worker benefits, so I don’t see how that requires union membership unless you think that public workers striking against THE PUBLIC makes sense.
Your “raise taxes” cry has been flogged to death. Perhaps you haven’t noticed but the American people are at a tipping point where raising taxes is not an option since most taxpayers have hit their limit. The people have realized that “raising taxes” is not an option since politicians can’t be trusted to use the money to control costs. There are inumerable examples of politicians using the new tax revenues to fund NEW spending, so we have come to the conclusion that starving the politicians is the only way to get true defict control. We have stopped falling for the “lock box” arguments and the argument that the revenue will be dedicated soley to this project etc since the politicians find a way around each of these mollifying tax increase arguments.
As for your tired middle class disappearing argument. I point you to what an inflationary driver such as the obscene spending we see in DC will do to middle class 401k savings. I also would mention that the studies of the disappearing middle class are all over the board and depend largely on how you define middle class.
If you have concern for the middle class, look for what the public sector unions are doing. They are pitting college educated middle class workers (teachers) against middle class taxpaying public trying to create a two-tier middle class, those who pay for their penisnon, and those who also have to pay for public service workers pensions. There isn’t enough money to pay for both, The time has come where Taxpayers are saying that they can only pay for one pension and the Public worker should help pay for theirs.
Please don’t try the argument that the PSW are lower paid. That myth is desolving rapidly as the facts about guarnateed medical paid from early retirement (55 to medicare kicks in) and pensions with high costs of living) have stripped that argument bare. They may have equal pay or slightly less but the benefits raise the TOTAL pay to well above the average worker.
The GOP has a mandate to control costs, and the pay, pensions, and medical for state workers has eaten up a large share of current and future state budgets demands that the problem be solved, so castigating the Reps for addressing this issue is like trying to ignore the elephant in the room.
Well said Tom. Your analogy about ignoring the elephant in the room is very good. The elephant ie Republicans are the ones who are trying to restore fiscal sanity to the states and the Federal Government. The people spoke on 11-2 and elected them to get the spending under control. The left wing and unions are fighting them tooth and nail, but they are fighting a losing battle with the taxpayers of this country and their days are numbered.
Funny how a liberal when confronted with facts, logic and reason, reverts to an emotional outburst of ridicule and factless name calling “McCathyism”? I love your statement “when govt coffers are flush, it should be reasonably assumed that public unions may bargain to receive a share of the abundance…that’s what unions do.”
SO DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT? IT IS OUR MONEY IDIOT, NOT GOVERNMENTS!WE THE TAX PAYERS ARE THE GOVERNMENT KNUCKLEHEAD!
Comon, Watcher you can do better than that. Here is a reality check for you dude.
1 We are Broke because of Government Unions, and over spending!
2.Social Security is Broke, you will have to wait until your 69 to retire.
3.Government workers should not make more than the average private sector employee makes. 40K or something near that, with a matching 401k and half your healthcare paid for. Welcome to the private sector.
4. How about your 2 weeks off paid vacation a year. Again, welcome to the private sector.
5. If a government worker does not do a good job someone should be able to fire them, Just like us.
Insofar as the costs of supporting the benefits levels paid to public employees are more than the private sector, I agree. Insofar as these costs are debilitating state and municipal governments, I agree. I do NOT agree with busting the union in WI AFTER the benefits concessions were made. This is an over reach.
Insofar as the “dwindling” middle class being a myth, and the wealth concentration continuing to concentrate (what is the latest stat….that less than 1% of the population controls in excess of 20% of wealth in this country)you want to brush all this aside…as you alkways do…if it doesn’t agree with your world view. Sorry, even conservative stat monitors concur…so then, what is your solution?
And, you have not responded to the second part of the eaquation. OF COURSE any liberal does not want waste or duplication. If I were weilding the hatchet, I would start with congressional perks, staffs, equipment, travel, franking privileges, healthcare, pensions, etc. and move on down the line.
But to ignore the fact that the BIG BIG ELEPHANT in the room which is what you tend to do, that the wealthier are NOT paying their fairshare and have benefitted mightily and overproportionally from the tax provisions of the recent decades, is not being realistic. And, Just as I am not supposed to give you the old saw about “public empoloyees make less than the private sector” do not begin to tell me that lower taxes on the wealthy benefit the segment that create jobs. LOOK at the stats, not the propaganda.
although I tried to keep an open mind at the time when the TP and Gopers swept in in 2010, I feared that they would overstep whatever perceived mandate they may have had, which was to help balance the budget. But the agenda now comes out, as I also feared…As I said, the Constitution cuts both ways…I’d rather have someone’s hand in my pocket than in my bedroom or in my church…I predict that the GOP/TP will be unable to resist overstepping the “mandate” they think they had, and will crash and burn due to high handed, uncompromising, non negotiating ways.
I hope that you do know that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was against the right of government workers to use collective bargaining, Thats right FDR would most likely not have supported the workers in WI.
Watcher are we not talking about the unconstitutional healthcare law your liberal congress enacted in the dark of night in the back rooms of the capital building.
By the way the union members are not middle class america, they are above middle class america now. Non union people are not sympathetic to them. They get paid 70K a year, get 8 weeks off, Retire in 20 years and free healthcare for life. Did I mention he delivers your mail.
Retire in 20 years with full benefits, paid for mostly by taxpayers! Who in the private sector gets those kinds of benefits? (only those grandfathered in to previous union agreements – newbies don’t get anywhere near the same benefits).
According to the United Auto Workers themselves, (in a statement just after the concessions made to save the “big three” automakers): The AVERAGE UAW worker, with usually just a high school education, and AFTER the concessions, makes a total wage of $110,000 per year.
And the real argument in Wisconsin is simply whether or not unions can REQUIRE everyone to belong. They hide the real argument in titles that don’t mean anything, i.e. “collective bargaining” is a RIGHT given to every American. Mandated union membership is a right?
Watcher, let me concede your 1% argument for a moment. You tell me what % of their wealth (not just income)shouldthey give to all forms of government. Note: I am not looking for how much of the inoome tax % they pay. Is it 60,70,80%.
Also, do you believe that if one person gets rich, it is at the expense of another. In other words, must every dollar that a rich person makes comes out of your pocket or some poor person’s pocket.
Do you believe that income and wealth is a fixed finite amount, or that gross wealth, all the wealth in the country, neither contacts nor expands?
You tell me, but first let me guess that your answers are 80%, and yes to everything else. That means, we cannot have a rational discussion about fairness; nor can we have a real discussion about controlling spending.
As for public sector unions, please tell me why college educated workers need protection from the public they serve. Or, in the alternative, tell me why a public sector union is needed to improve their work environment and protect them for harsh or dangerous conditions. Let me help you a bit, union membership has dropped due to their success. Most of the issues that brought attention to the need for a union (e.g thos conditions covered inUpton Sinclair’s The Jungle) have long since been codified in Labor laws, OSHA regs, EEOC rules and a host of other regulatory dicktats.
Public sector unions came about, for the most part, when JFK saw how much the dues meant to elections and JFK let the genie out of the bottle. The 70s fanned the flames when Teachers Unions really morphed into today’s union movement, again, supporting political causes rather than conditions. Oh yes, pay and benefits were also a part of the process and really what we are now left with is a political dues machine and benefits machine disguised as what used to be a 19th and 20th century noble movement.
What is going on now in Wisc and elsewhere is an attempt by conservatives to control costs by controlling this out of date and uncontrollable movement. Parenthetically, I limit this debate to the public sector as I really don’t care about the battle between profit making companies and their employees.
An attempt to return more control to the state and local government is what is need to lead the charge against overspending and overcommittment. Both state and local citizens have realized that the election of their fellow citizens has been partially countermanded by having their election official work with their Union partners to change work rules, compensation, and other critical functions and dutes which tend to hamstring state and local governments while simultaneously creating additinal cost.
In essence we now have bifurcated our government by adding these unelected partners to the mix and thus lessened the affect of what our elected officials can accomplish with the mandates that the election gave them. Much of what Gov Walker is looking to do is to tip the scale back to the taxpayer, where the power rightly belongs.
By the way, it would seek that either you are the second or third iteration of Cassandra, or am I wrong?
Well, Sarah, I guess that depends on what you call middle class.
But, like the “wealthy” there are really so few of those union workers left now…after the nabobs have exported their jobs, concessions have been forced, etc. So what is so wrong with someone who builds cars or tractors making a good living?
And, yes, I do know that FDR did not support public unions, nor Meany, et. al. And I do kinow that governments do not make “profits”….Tom, you put that word in my mouth, I didn’t.
And, Sarah, for one who accuses me of falling back on “McCarthyism” rather than “fact, logic or reason”and “reverts to factless Name calling” then goes on to call me an idiot and a knuckleheads, I would suggest you are far more guilty than I. But again, I forgot, you are the only shinijg light and true believer. Everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. All Hail, Sarah, Regina.
What is wrong with someone who builds cars or tractors making a good living? Nothing if their wages represent what they contribute to the system. But if they want ME to pay more than the product is worth just so they can have fat cat jobs (high school education, semi-skilled workers making $110,000 per year?) where the fat comes out of my pocket, they can forget it. They had control until the Japs started making MUCH better cars at lower prices. Then their model was unsustainable.
Talk about being a hypocrite. I am still waiting for all the liberals who bashed the Tea Party for being violent and partisan (Nancy Pelosi almost cried saying how much they looked like the KKK) LOL…I am still waiting on these same wacko’s to look at the signs the Unions are walking around with in WI.
I will feel sorry for them when someone gives me a pension at age 45 and free healthcare and 6 weeks paid vacation a year.
Watcher, I just love your facts, Here is your statement, with the facts after.
“the BIG BIG ELEPHANT in the room, that the wealthier are NOT paying their fairshare and have benefitted mightily and overproportionally from the tax provisions of the recent decades, is not being realistic. And, Just as I am not supposed to give you the old saw about “public empoloyees make less than the private sector” do not begin to tell me that lower taxes on the wealthy benefit the segment that create jobs. LOOK at the stats, not the propaganda” LOLOLOLOLOL……
2009 Federal Income Statistics.
The top 5% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes.
The bottom 40% do not pay any Federal Income Taxes.
Of the top 10% of earners 80% of those are small business owners who employ 70% of all workers in this country.
I think they are paying their fair share dont you?
You go girl! Poor watcher is in over his/her head in this debate. Watcher is a true redistribution of wealth Progressive. He/she obviously doesn’t understand about who pays the taxes in this country. Here is a good statistic to chew on. The IRS takes in 200 Bil per month in taxes. The government can’t seem to operate on that lofty amount and spends roughly 300 bil per month leading to record deficits. There is no doubt the Government behomoth is far too large and is trying to do too much and is wasting too much. Who in this administration or Congress is advocating cutting out the fraud and waste in Government. We wouldn’t have near the fiscal problems if we got serious on that one issue. Public sector unions are responsible for a lot of the problem, but big spending politicians and lack of oversight on Government programs, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements are at fault for much of the rest. This country is broke and needs a serious financial audit and overhaul.
Tom, I am inclined to believe this is Cassandra disguised as Watcher. Pretty much all the same Progressive Liberal talking points. The unions and politicians are figuratively if not literally in bed with one another. The unions give union dues from members to politicians in order to secure and maintain the gravy train of wages and benefits, all at the taxpayers expense. It is no wonder they are screaming so loudly in Wisconsin and bringing in sympathizers from other states. Their applecart has been overturned by Walker. Wisonsin’s Senators fled the state so they wouldn’t have to vote trying to forestall the legislation. Now, they are going to force Walker to lay off state employees because the well is dry. This is coming to a head and unions will lose because the taxpayers see what they are up to. I hope all the other blue states in this predicament will do the same thing. Walker, you hang in there. The folks are on your side.
However, the “billions” the hospitals get in federal subsidies for treating the uninsured do not begin to cover the cost, hence costs to those who can pay have to be inflated.
Either way you look at it, we the taxpayers and users end up paying not only our premiums but extra taxes to make sure everyone can be treated.
For some strange reason, the cost to us in higher taxes doesn’t seem to be factored into the cost and impact of mandatory universal care.
If the health care bill is felt to be unconstitutional, then can we assume those who feel that way will/have rejected:
social security,
medicare,
medicaid,
federally subsidized ethanol for our gasoline (an incredible waste by the way, with no net positive effect)and likewise
will not drive on our federally mandated and paid for by universal federal taxation highways, (it’s not ok for them to drive on state highways either since they are all subsidized by federal money).
Likewise, one must assume, they will voluntarily not buy any food items that cross state lines since they are governed by federal rules and inspection paid for by federal taxes, nor will the be allowed to
fly since the entire system of air traffic control and airport construction and maintenance are paid for by either federal taxes or federal surcharges.
Nor can they use any form of modern communication since they are either paid for, subsidized by or universally governed by the feds, using our taxes.
Yes, it is true one can function in this country free of virtually all federal influence, subsidies, payments, etc. – the Mennonites already do so, and are always looking for new converts.
As for the unconstitiutionality of SS, Medicare, you might be on the right track; however, the obvious difference is that we pay taxes for the benefits rather than being forced to buy a product from a private sector business. With SS, the tag has been that we have paid in and should expect a “return” of that money, albeit by another generation. The Congress feels comforable with legislating a “tax”, but you will note that Obama scrupiously avoided calling the mandate a “tax” since adding more taxes to an alreay overtaxed population was a no-go from the get go.
Temblor – key word is middle class. not the wealthier individuals. The US have one of the most burdensome tax codes in the world.
Over the years with our wonderful democratic political system which has been bastardized to allow for Unions to own democrats, and big Industry lobbiest to own Republicans, we find ourselves with a tax code that does not make any since.
FLAT FAIR TAX OR A CONSUMPTION TAX. THIS IS THE ONLY IT WORKS FAIRLY FOR ALL.
It would be funny to see the lobbiest with nothing to talk about in Washington if we went to a flat tax system or an even consumption tax. No penalty for products! Next thing you see is a higher tax on McDonalds or Coca Cola.
A flat tax is what we should all look to but it won’t solve the other issue of corporations or unions lobbying the goverment for corp subsidies (e.g. ethanol (ADM) or green technology GE) benefits and pay (public sector unions). We can make the tax coder fairer but we have to rein in the size of government it toto to get the maximum effect.
Government at all levels is so corrupt it will take a Herculean effort to reign it in. Special interests (lobbyists) have their tentacles deeply inbedded into the political process. Government reform should ban all lobbying activity and they shouldn’t be allowed to visit or have appointments with Congress. The money is too tempting and the public’s interest is not served well. If we do these things and reform the tax code to a fair or flat tax, we can pull ourselves out of this serious jam.
The Dems don’t want any changes to the tax code which is very “progressive”. They want to expand the IRS and hire thousands more to enforce Obamacare and fine or tax those who don’t want it. They are in favor of ever increasing the size and scope of government so they can regulate, tax and impose their will on every facet of our life. Not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, is it?
And yet Shrub’s administration oversaw the largest increase in federal debt in history, even when adjusted for inflation, and the Republicans and conservatives want to blame it all on Obama, who has only been in office for 2 years.
Temblor, in 8 years Bush had a cumulative defict of 2.1 Trillion. At no time did the annual deficit approach a Trillion dollars. This President had a 1.4 Trillion defict followed by a 1.3 Trillion deficit with a deficit of 1.6 Trillion for this fiscal year and 1.1 Trillion for next fiscal year, fot an actual or total in four years of 5.4 for his term (see Fed Gov websites). So, you are right, this President has done more damaage to the economy in two years than Bush did in 8 years (and I am not a fan of Bush spending and deficits). The debt will go from a total of 11.4 Trillion under Bush to a projected 15.5 Trillion when Obama is tossed out. That is quite an accomplishment.
A President is elected in Nov., takes office the following Jan., but the budget is passed the preceding Oct. Obama had nothing to do with the ’08 – ’09 budget, he only inherited it.
Bush also passed the stimulus bill, not Obama. It was a done deal when Obama took office. Obama did, however, notice that it was a pure give away, no requirement that the money be paid back. He changed that, requiring the recipients to put up collateral, and to pay a handsome rate of interest.
EVERYONE has now paid the government back except Chrysler who hasn’t paid any back, and AIG who has paid a goodly portion back, but not all. And the government has mostly been paid back and to boot made a handsome profit, all thanks to Obama.
Obama also inherited the recession, the housing bust, Freddie and Fannie, etc. These were all led by Bush and his minions who weren’t watching the store and didn’t want to cramp Wall Street’s style. And don’t forget who started the two wars, one necessary, the second started to just show he was a better man than his father (Cheney, by the way, strongly advised Bush Sr. NOT to invade Iraq, but somehow had changed his mind by the time Jr. got in – could it have something to do with his by then developed very strong financial ties to the oil industry, who benefited mightily when the invasion drove up the price of oil?
Temblor, your facts are shaky, The Trouble Relief Assets Program of nearly 1 Trillion was voted for by Mr. O. The profits etc were all built in by Pualson. It is true that about 1/2 has been paid back with interest, mostly from the big banks, e.g. Paulson’s Goldman and Sach, but there are a huge number of other companies, including AIG, GM, and Chrysler who paid a small portion back but mostly exchanged stock for the debt, most of which will never reach value enough to ever pay back the “loan”.
The stimulus bill of another 1 Trillion, was all Big O and was used mainly to prop up state and local employment. Now that it is running out, we see what is happening to the states.
As far as the housing market which set this mess off, it was relaxed mortgage requirements that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd demanded that Fred and Fan insurer. The Banks and mortage company then relaxed their standard and issued hure amounts of sub prime (poor credit risk) loans. They also hedged their bets by buying insurance from AIG (crredit default swaps). When all of this failed, the system nearly went down. You want so much to blame Bush, but he did try to get Congress to reform Fred & Fan but he couldn’t get a Demo Congress to do so. The warning signs were their (see Brooksley Born) but ignored. You might also look to see who ran Fred and Fan and check out who Franklin Raines and Jamie Goerlich (clintonistas) and how they feasted on bonuses based on whole cloth “profits”.
While you are at it, look up “crony capitalism” and then check out Jeffrey Immelts connection to Big O. GE’s CEO had set his sights on over 60 Billion in sales to the Feds for “green technology” and green machines. Unfortunately for GE and their stockholders, this isn’t working out so well, so green Jeff is not becoming part of the Admin.
You really need to open your eyes about the state of the Demo party and how the Demo have morphed into something that JFK would never recognize.
March 1, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Temblor says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry, I meant TARP not stimulus…
March 1, 2011 at 10:48 am
Sarah says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
temblor,
Its one thing to miss speak, Its another to blattenly lie. Obama has overseen the largest expansion of debt in our countries history. FACT!
You also forget that Congress spends money and since 2006 untile 2011 Congress has been in the sole hands of liberal democrats. So for the last 2 years of Bushes Terms Spending doubled, and by the way we did have 2 wars and a housing bust which spilled onto Wallstreet by the selling of mortgage backed securities. created by the likes of Bwarney Fwank and Chris Dudd with Fannie and Freddie.
But really you can not say with a straight face that Bush spent more than Obama. That is just plan Stupid.
I am afraid that Obama has dug such a deep financial hole for this country that we will not be able to dig our way out. The spending cuts proposed so far will not make much of a dent. The Congress needs to take a very serious approach and cut all departments or consolidate many of them, cut the Federal workforce by 500,000 and do serious entitlement reform which includes a massive effort to cut fraud and waste from Medicare, Medicaid and numerous government programs which need to be cancelled entirely. Politicians have historically not had the intestinal fortitude to do these things and lobbbyists and special interests will keep giving them money to not do the necessary cuts. The taxpayers ox will continue to get gored for years to come. Can anyone say “Bankruptcy”?
There are some really good GOP Govs (Christie – NJ, Jindal – LA, McConnel – VA, Walker – WI). Unfortunately none of them are goin to run in 2012. I agree there isn’t anyone out there to get excited about. I like Palin and think she might be the right choice. The state controlled media will tell you who they fear by attacking them. They don’t attack McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, etc. They are constantly attacking Palin and Walker. I think Palin is more electable then a lot of people think. There are always going to be people who won’t vote for someone no matter what but the same holds true for the person they are running against.
Did anyone see the report that came out about the massive waste of the Federal Government? There is so much overlap and duplication between the departments, agencies and sub agencies it amounts to several hundred billions of dollars. When the Republicans go after cuts in the budget, they should home in on cutting out all these departments, programs, duplications. We the People have allowed these politicians to create this mess and now they have to do something about it. We will hold them accountable.
Denial isn’t just a river in Africa. Yes, the GOP made a lot of mistakes. Keep in mind that the Democrats controlled congress during Bush’s last two years and they were the ones that passed the stimulus bill. Did Bush make a mistake by signing it? Yes, but Bush like his father is not a conservative.
Temblor, State controlled media or drive by media = NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, AP, MSNBC, NY Times, or any non-objective media outlet. I would like to know how the media would have reacted to Pres Palin doing what Obama has done with Wisconsin or the Middle East. Our President is a community agitator who does not like the USA as it was founded.
The media used to fancy itself as the “fourth branch” of government. It now seems to be the “dead branch” of gov. College journalism has now focused their graduates on “changing the world” rather than on reporting facts and letting the reader determine the outcome. Changing the world has morphed into a crusade for “social justice”. Seems every journalist now want a “Che” or Woodward/Burnstein moment to validate their decision to go into this low paying profession. The bias to the left is so pronounced that it is indisputable; however, they still try to convince themselves they are beyond partisanship. They are so blinded by their ideology that they haven’t even noticed that the cat has long since left the bag.
I find it funny that the arch conservatives all see the press as “liberal”. Don’t they read any of the plethora of conservative publications, watch or listen to any of the conservative broadcasts?
Temblor, I think you got a little mixed up on your facts. The TARP was passed under Bush, but the Stimulus was Obama all the way. Where are all those shovel ready jobs created? If the TARP has been largely paid back, where is the money? The Stimulus hasn’t all been spent. Why not apply it to the debt? It certainly didn’t create many jobs, did it? By the way, Obama did have something to do with the 08-09 budget. As a junior Senator, he voted for it in the Democratically controlled Congress headed by the infamous Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Bush should have vetoed it and scaled it way back, but didn’t to his detriment.
Yes, the Stimulus was passed during Obama’s administration and signed by Obama, but I don’t recall any Republicans screaming “Don’t do it!” In fact, they were all screaming that Obama was not doing enough to create new jobs, starting with the day he took the oath!
The TARP became law Oct. 3, 2008, not only before Obama took the oath of office, but before the election! So, according to tradition, it is assigned to Bush, who signed it.
The Washington Post has a great graphic showing the annual deficits under Bush (who signed all the budgets) and Obama, unfortunately they ascribe the ’09 deficit to Obama when, as President, he had nothing to do with it, it was passed in Oct. ’08, again before the election and before he took to oath of office. The ’09 budget was signed into law by Bush.
Unfortunately, I can’t get the graphic to copy and paste over.
Google “Bush Deficits” to find the link to the graphic. Be sure to go to the link to the latest one, the first that shows is outdated.
Much as one may dislike Obama, the plain fact is the economic situation existed before he took office, he didn’t create it. And if you want to criticize budgets, take a look at the Republicans proposed budget. What a laugh.
I wonder why Obama/Pelosi/Reid had no budget at all for 2010. They just kept passing continuing resolutions to fund the government. The answer is they didn’t have a clue and didn’t want the people finding out how much money they were spending and how they were running up a 1.3Trillion with a T debt. Bush’s budgets were way out of line, but pale in comparison to the Progressive Liberal spending of the past 2 years. In fact, Obama has a bigger deficit in 2 years than Bush had in 8. His stimulus was a big bust and no amount of spinning will change that. If this government is not brought under control soon, we will see Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see until the country implodes.
According to the Constitution, the budget is supposed to originate in the House…
I agree the deficit must be brought under control, but you can’t do it the way the Republicans and TP’s want to do it. They are tackling the elephant’s right front toenail.
It’s going to take adjustments to entitlements, and, oh my goodness, !HIGHER TAXES! to make any impact. But, of course, Republicans and TP’s are dead set against both, instead they want to kill Sesame Street!
Higher taxes, mmmmm, that should help the economy and jobs! LOL.
How about the president support the debt commission he created and take thier reccomendations of a reduction in the tax rate for higher earners as they create jobs and keep this economy going and make everyone pay something to the Feds for taxes. The bottom 40% PAY NOTHING AT ALL! and address “entitlements” Gosh! I hate that word, it is such an ozymoron.
Sorry liberals and Socialist Unions, Your day has past, and we all know how to add and subtract now, Unfortunately for the Country you have done nothing but subtract from the Federal reserve and add to our national debt. The Jig is up!
March 2, 2011 at 8:40 am
Tom says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Temblor, again, you are shaky on your facts. The stimulus was opposed by Repubs as it represented the Keynesian multiplier philosophy that the gov can use money to “invest” and get a return. That philosophy has been discredited and more so with the recent 1 Trillion dollar effort that produced nothing. What it did do was bolster states revenue so public sector workers who pay union dues to the Dems could keep their jobs. Even the Pres had to admit that the stimulus didn’t produce any “shovel ready” jobs.
You can attempt to convince yourself that Bush’s deficits are like Obams’s but I don’t see how you escape the difference between BILLIONS and TRILLIONS.
The “plethora” of conservative media outlets aren’t network tv stations. Journalism is supposed to be objective. There is nothing objective about today’s media. Fox is truly fair and balanced. Liberals may not agree with this because they are used to their cronies at the other media outlets spinning every story the way the liberals want them to.
I detect a note of sarcasm Temblor. What about your “objective” reporters at ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS,CNN? No one is arguing that Beck and Limbaugh are fair and balanced. They are reporting from the Conservative viewpoint and informing the public about what is going on in the Progressive Liberal movement and alerting the public. They have succeeded in waking up America as evidenced by the recent “shellacking” given to the minion followers of Obama and his crowd.
Since when is Rush on Fox News? Like it or not Rush is audited and is proven to be right over 98% of the time. How many liberals are right over 98% of the time? ZERO.
Ahh tax increases, the liberals answer to everything. Please explain to me how increasing taxes is going to help increase revenues? If you are a business owner are you going to be motivated to grow your business and hire more employees if the govt is taking more money out of your pocket? As an individual are you going to spend more money when you have more money in your pocket or when you have less money in your pocket? Raising taxes will send us into a depression.
NCA, you are so right. If only we could get our friends on the left to give us an idea of where they break on the % of income that citizens should devote to Local, State and Federal government, including property taxes, sales taxes, fees etc. We are at 50% now and most Americans think that is enough. If you think that the government has an unlimited ability to meet you every want or desire, then percetages are irrelevant and that seems to be where the left has chosen to reside.
There is no doubt government at all levels need serious reforms because the money just isn’t there anymore and the folks will not allow more tax increases. I cite the GAO report that revealed the morass of duplication, waste and outright fraud that plagues this monstrous government. Many of the departments and agencies are doing the same thing trying to justify their existence. Terribly inefficient and wasteful. The Federal Government in particular needs a complete house cleaning with all unnecesary programs cut or eliminated. Medicare and Medicaid needs a watchdog who will identify fraud and abuse. Potential savings of $100 Bil per year if it is cleaned up. The budget could be brought under control in a few short years if this country operated a leaner, more efficient government. The mentally challenged Progressive Liberals will fight this all the way because they want their union employees to continue to have their jobs creating the massive debt the country has accumulated over a period of decades. The bottom line is “Government is too big and does not serve the citizens well”.
I am kind of glad that the economy is where it is because it brings logic, reason and fiscal responsibility back to the fore front again.
Wisconsin has a 3.6 billion deficit! with no way to print money unlike the unions bit*h Obama can, they are facing reason and fiscal responsibility. It is hillarious to listen to them try to explain that they need to keep their “entitlement pensions” and non contributed healthcare cost while the rest of us look for quarters to pay for groceries.
I think the progressives think they are on the verge of creating their socialist/ communist revolution. I believe just the oposite. We are on the verge of eliminating Unions and waste from Government and putting ourselves on a path to fiscal responsibility which is necessary for the continued superior position financially of the United States of Amercia. The land of Oportunity not the land of entitlement!
Sarah, This is going to be the roughest fight in American Political history. You are right saying the Progressive Socialists think this is their time to change America for good to their version of Socialist Utopia. A funny thing happened on 11-2. They got shellacked. The tide has now turned and these people are screaming, jumping up and down and threatening violence to get their way. Hopefully, there are enough good people to shut their agenda down and return this country to sanity and fiscal responsibility.
I admire these people, they have so much faith they can guarantee, no matter what, they will never need a doctor, EVER. My hat is off to these people and it makes me feel like I just don’t have enough resolve… because if I had a massive injury, or illness, I would want medical care!
So how does this work? Say one of these radical Christians gets hit by a car and is bleeding to death on the side of the road, when the ambulance gets there they say “no thanks, God has got a plan for me to die in this ditch, be on your way now”. Otherwise, if they don’t have insurance all of us that do will be paying for their emergency care.
Believe it or not according to The Urban Institute between 12%-17% of the US population NEVER receive professional medical care during their lifetime. The same study concluded 25% of the uninsured pay out of pocket and in full for all their medical care. 84% of 20-somethings who are uninsured will buy insurance buy the age of 36. The hospitals that must, by law, treat the uninsured in emergencies cases only do so as a condition of receive BILLIONS a year in government subsidies. There are some hospitals that opt out and are not required to treat the uninsured. Those who do aren’t exactly giving away free care. The term “freeloader” is a liberal talking point, a buzz word, a headline, but the fact is the uninsured are NOT the problem, they are not the reason for high health care costs.
All of these stupid lawsuits are costing more that obtaining the coverage itself!
Although cost is a major factor in this whole debate, the most important issue is that the entire health care bill is unconstitutional.
CT, I thought that is what the courts are trying to decide now. If it has already been established as “unconstitutional”, what are the courts doing?
The liberal judges are spitting on the Constitution.
Dear Author:
Three judges have upheld the mandate
Two judges have struck down the mandate
Why does the title of this article say “Another Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Healthcare Mandate”? To the contrary, the dichotomy is striking, and is closely correlated to whether the judge was nominated by a Democrat or Republican.
Stating “another” suggest its overwhelmingly one-sided, which it is not. Please avoid unnecessary editorializing in the future.
Too bad that our Courts including the Supreme Court have become political activists.
“Kessler is the third Democratic-appointed judge to dismiss a challenge, while two Republican-appointed judges have ruled part or all of the law unconstitutional. Kessler wrote that the Supreme Court will need to settle the constitutional issues.”
They will settle it based on who appointed them. If that is not progressive political thinking I do not know what is. What ever happened to reading the Constitution with a Websters dictionary and figuring out what it says? It really is that easy!
Our Constitution was so perfect as written we’ve only had to amend it 27 times. We should repeal all the amendments and go back to the original. No voting rights for women, minorities, prohibition…oh wait that was repealed, no presidential term limits etc. etc. etc.
Leroy,
The key word in your statement was amendment. If a group of people do not agree with the Constitution they can put forth an amendment. But the progressive liberals know that the public does not want Socialism, A nanny state and would not approve of the overbearing government that the progressives want. So what do they do appoint liberal activist judges to the Supreme Court when elected and therefore allow the Constitution to be stretched and bastardized to fit their agenda. I can not wait to read the opinions of Obama appointed judges. LOL….
The document is perfect! If you dont like it amend it!
So far Obama has appointed only one Supreme Court judge, whereas Shrub appointed three or four – and not the best choices at that.
Every other civilized country has universal health care.
It’s like national defence, roads and borders, it’s just something any government should do, to make sure that any person withing the borders gets whatever treatment they need.
I do care if the person in front of me in line is here illegally, but unless we’re going to deport them in the next 15 minutes please make sure that they can go to any hospital for anything and get treated if they are going to be sharing my air and touching the same surfaces.
We should just nationalize all healthcare, treat doctors, nurses, administrators and researchers as public employees and make it illegal to charge for any providing of medical services.
I don’t see any consideration for how much this costs, so you can’t be taken seriously. Have you considered the cost of overuse when everything is “free”. And, by the way, who pays for free, and how much free income would you want to devote to this utopian concept. By the way, how about free housing, free food, free clothing, free transportation, free vacations. Don’t we need all of these as much as free healhcare.
Maybe we can get China to give us free interest on our 14 Trillion dollar debt.
We do Eric. It’s called Medicaid. And there are probably more illegal’s on it then US citizens. These people have been abusing the “system” for decades and they know “the ropes” of how to do it too.
You mean socialize healthcare, not nationalize healthcare. Nationally, we already have it.
Sorry, Xena, you’re incorrect. You can’t get Medicaid unless you have a VALID social security number. This is just one more myth perpetuated by the right wing radicals to try to support an unsupportable position.
Tell the truth, or don’t say anything.
W.R.,your are right to degree. The children of illegals ARE eligible for Medicaid. As far as the cost of treatment, everyone in the US is entitled to emergency room treatment, so that is where the illegal expense comes in and at a very high cost.
Let’s also not forget that the government is not that good at checking to see if the card is valid and fits the person, so identity theft also is possible.
Actually, the gov’t is very good at checking SS numbers for validity.
Texas recently did a study to determine the net impact of the cost of taking care of illegals.
They do pay into SS (the feds DON’T verify those numbers!), but since their numbers are phony, they can never collect. They do pay taxes (again, the numbers aren’t checked) but can’t collect many of the benefits provided.
The Texas study found illegals actually pay more into the system than they can take out.
And, I checked, children of illegals cannot collect under Medicaid. A valid SS number and verification of qualifing by state officials are a pretty good barrier.
Anyone can be treated at the emergency room, regardless of status, and that is a heavy burden but, as the Texas study shows, the illegals pay their way.
And, one final thing to keep in mind, Texas was trying to prove that illegals were a significant burden, not a benefit. Even though the study didn’t prove the point they were trying to make, they at least had the honesty to disclose the fact.
Actually, a child born in the US is a US citizen and thus may apply and receive a SS #.
But, Tom, that’s not what your statement implies, you are implying that children not born here are eligible for Medicade. Qualifying it better would have clarified everything up front.
Children NOT born here are not eligible for Medicaid.
Eric, and just how many social security numbers ARE valid?? Humm? I just found out that my niece’s SS was stolen when she was 2 years old.. She’s 19 now and my sister is having a devil of a time getting this corrected. Wake up Eric. The person who is using her SS has a Hispanic name and obviously known’s how to work the system. Valid SS number, give me a break. And anyone out there with children, you should run a credit report NOW! Before your children are trying to apply for credit. Valid SS numbers, you make me laugh Eric.
Sorry Eric, I ment to send this to W R Lockhart: W R, and just how many social security numbers ARE valid?? Humm? I just found out that my niece’s SS was stolen when she was 2 years old.. She’s 19 now and my sister is having a devil of a time getting this corrected. Wake up Eric. The person who is using her SS has a Hispanic name and obviously known’s how to work the system. Valid SS number, give me a break. And anyone out there with children, you should run a credit report NOW! Before your children are trying to apply for credit. Valid SS numbers, you make me laugh Lockheart.. Get YOUR facts stright OR say nothing at all!!
Xena, you’re confusing things. Stolen doesn’t mean it’s an invalid number. And you should always check your and your children’s credit reports (all three) at least once a year (Federal Law says you get a free copy of each once a year). Waiting 17 years to first check your niece’s credit report is a tad too long.
Get your apples and oranges straight or don’t say anything at all!
Where are you from Eric, Great Britain or Canada? Nationalized medicine has been an abysmal failure everywhere it has been tried. Why do you think Great Britain has laid off a large part of their healthcare workers? It is too expensive for them, provides poor care and people die before they can get operations. Many come to the US for their operations or treatments. Why is that? If we make the doctors and nurses public employees, we will be dealing with the unions again and the costs will be 30-40% higher. Not a pleasant prospect.
Another myth perpetuated by the right wing radicals. Talk to anyone living in Canada or England. They very much like their system. Yes, their are problems with it, but they have good access to whatever care they need. As is the case here, some care is rationed or restricted but that’s because of rational restrictions on what is necessary or feasible.
And, by the way, everyone please note: We now have death panels, courtesy of right wing Republicans (Arizona, for those who don’t actually keep up).
Tell the truth or don’t say anything.
W.R. You can talk to the Canadians at the hospitals in Florida. If it is so good, why then did Canadian premier, Danny Williams of Newfoundland, seek treatment last year in the US.
I have relatives in England and they don’t seem to share your “anyone” standard.
Funny, how normally a compassionate Demo becomes a “rationer”. Maybe when it comes down to saving both arms due to a disease that has a cure, you can rationalize with the patient that you have decided that you have only enough money to save one. And being a gratious and compassonate man, you let him pick.
I actually talk to numerous friends who live in Canada and England.
How many people go to Canada from the US to get their healthcare?
How many of the best medical schools are in Canada or England?
Not too many right? I didnt think so!
So the key sentence in this article is: “She also said that anyone who objects to having health care for religious reasons can choose to pay the penalty instead…” Isn’t that now the “American Way”, just keep passing laws and whoever does not want to abide by them just pay the fine. (I.E.:mandatroy auto insurance, no insurance, pay the fine. Mandatory snow cleaning of your property- not done, just pay the fine. Mandatory health inurance, not purchased, just pay the fine
Since Obama is trying to be more like Reagan I think he should follow Judge Vinson’s ruling. Obama’s defense is that the law is legal because of the commerce clause in the Constitution. However the commerce clause does nothing of the sort. I would advise reading Judge Vinson’s summary of his ruling or Landmark Legal Foundation’s statements about the Virginia lawsuit.
What planet is she on? sure isn’t ours. It would have been nice had all Americans had the real opportunity to read this mound of whatever came off the presses but no, it was like wolves lurking in he night to get something passed while they thought we were all sleeping, unfortunately many were I’m afraid – the Senate, Congress etc…all had the nose ring and followed you know who!! This entire matter is so disappointing and it’s only going to cost the American Citizens – wake up for pity sakes!
In all of my 62 years on this earth it has been understood that the Government has the power to tax. I beleive that the Supreme Court will rule the Government does not have the power under the Constitution of these United States to mandate all of it’s citizens purchase a product or face a fine or penalty. If the constitution is violated it will be the beginning of the end of this free nation. It will also bring into question what responsibilites we have as citizens and veterans to protect this time honored document. We find it difficult to keep young people insured for auto insurance. Mandated health premiums will certainly be a farce. We need some real world legislators and leaders in this country!
Get over yourself Maxine. You too are self serving. It is already costing the DOCUMENTED TAX PAYING CITIZENS whether or not the health care plan is enforced! Who do you think is footing the bill for the uninsured people who live in this country legally or illegally? I know I am I can see what is not in my paycheck each week!
Hey ALice – I do know we’re paying for this now and have been for some time
This needs to be decided soon before the American public catches on to cases such as 13 month old Joseph Maraachli, who is being prevented from receiving a tracheotomy so he can go home to die. The ruling, made by the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board, will raise the issue of “death panels” to new heights. Did I say “death panels”, I meant the “you are too expensive to keep alive panel”. I don’t want to be politically incorrect. This board won’t even allow the child to go to Michigan for evaluation. Regardless, the family is prevented from taking this child home to die since it would be cheaper to not have the trach and stay in the hospital so he can die more quickly. The panel felt that the parents were “blinded by love” and therefore couldn’t make proper choices. Now, we can’t have that can we, at least in the Canadian single payer system.
Bravo Tom. Well said and sad, very sad, but true.
See below posted by Watcher in response to this posting. Seems Tom left out a few pertinent facts. Wonder why?
Watcher says:
Like or Dislike:
8
11Tom
This has NOTHING to do with deaqth panels and too expensive to keep alive. Get your facts straight before you start positing demons.
and if this baby, whose own parents say they know he will not survive and who agree he is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery….and who also had another child die of the same neurpoligical disease,is transported to the Detroit hospital, who do you think will pay that bill? you are the one so concerned about costs…seems you talk out of two sides of your mouth. You harahgue about costs, but yet when you get an opportunity to spread fear about the totally imaginary death panels, you forget all about it.
In this case, why the hospital didn’t do the trach and get the parents to sign a release and let them take the baby home is beyond me…but it was NOT for the reasons about which you are fulminating.
Temblor, you are not just shaky on your facts but quakey. If you don’t think that cost was a consideration then you are just not thinking. The trach was not done as an unnecessary expense for a child with a “fatal” disease. The parents wanted a trach to be sure the child did not suffer from fluid build up etc while he was in the process of leaving this world. You may consider the “unnecessary” to mean medically unnecessry but no one can overlook the potential cost factor behind the Board’s decision. In any event, it points to the involvement of governmnent functionaries in the process, one that should involve honoring the parent’s request if at all possible.
You are right Sarah. Everything is politicized in this country. We have Dem/Liberal judges saying the law is constitutional and Rep/Conservative judges saying it is not. This 2,700 page monstrocity speaks volumes about how bad it is and how unconstitutional it is. Libs don’t want to live by the Constitution and view it as a living document that doesn’t mean what it says and they know best for the folks. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will make the determination and soon that the bill needs to be thrown out.
Ah, how easily they forget. The Administration didn’t write the bill, Congress did. It’s a monstrosity because, instead of keeping it simple and straightforward, every Congressman insisted amendments be made before they would vote for it, amendments which, most of the time, had nothing to do with healthcare (there are plenty of “bridges to nowhere” buried in there. It became so convoluted because virtually every congressperson had to be bought off before they would vote for it, even if they agreed with the premise – they all exacted their price whether it was good for the country or not.
Obama actually wanted a bill very similar to the one the Bushes tried to get passed. Nice, simple, straightforward.
I agree with Sarah…what a shame the courts are now so political, even going back to the Supreme Court decision in 2000 that stole the election from Gore! Pity, pity, Sarah.
Aren’t you glad that the election was stolen, or we would have been saddled with Green Gore, the global warming warrior. By the way, you may have missed the post election recount done by three newspapers who looked at the entire state and Bush would have one in a recount of the entire state rather than just the Dade county cherry picked recount requested by Gore. I will concede that Gore won the popular vote, but again, the electoral college saved us from Tipper’s ex.
Watcher, I really am not sure about the Gore Bush election of 2000. It really was the first time the Supreme Court had to deal with a Constitutional crisis involving the election of a President. That really could be a case where the Supreme Court was over zellous and ruled to soon. I think they were very concerned it would turn into a constitutional crisis and felt compelled to rule quickly. I would say the 2004 election there was no doubt about that outcome. I still wanted to see someone ask John Kerry, Why the long face?
I think everyone would agree that this Country would be so better off if we didnt take into consideration someones political affiliation when they were appointed and we didnt know how they would rule except that we all knew that they would be a non biased, non partial judge of facts using logic and reason .
The Supreme Court actually correctly interpreted the election laws of the State of Florida. Everyone forgets that. They couldn’t have done it any other way.
The law states that an election MUST be certified within so many days. All the BS with “hanging chads” etc. is what ate up all the time.
Gore just simply ran out of time.
Not Surprised…I find it so humorous when the conservatives blast the libs for over reaching the consititution, and then go out and want to strip others of their “rights”…re: abortion, union organizing, religious freedoms. As always, one man’s poison is another man’s nectar.
Wonder why all the armchair constitutional scholars on these blogs all appear to be conservative. Sounds like a convenient excuse (and a reach) to me to claim this bill is not consititutional. When argument fails, wrap self in a.) flag b.) Consititution c.) and believe selves only TRUE patriots in the land!
BALONEY
Watcher, I think you will find that conservatives don’t have a problem with private sector unions but can differentiate between them and public sector worker unions. Most thinking Americans should question why we have Pubs in the first place. There only function is to lobby their neighbors (taxpayers represented by politicians) for pay and benefits. Work conditions etc are not an issue since taxpayers are not the “robber barons” of old. So let’s look at the conflict of a Pub union asking a Politicians who they contributed to and got elected to give them what they want. The current debate with Pub is how to tip the symbiotic relationship back to the taxpayers. It is just that simple.
Watcher, You make the perfect case against the libs. The reason why the “armchair constitutional scholars” are Conservative is because the Progressive Democrats are trampling all over the Constiution or completely disregarding it to push their agenda. This country had very brilliant founding fathers who saw the dangers of big government and what it would bring and sought to have a limited government which is best for a free enterprise system. These Progressive ideas born a hundred years ago have been advanced in recent years and they seek to control every aspect of our lives and tax and spend until the country goes broke. Wake up and smell the coffee. The country is broke, many of the states, cities, counties, school districts are broke and the Progressives still want the public dole to continue with ever higher costs to the citizen/taxpayers. This is the tipping point and it cannot continue. If the Progressives were true patriots, they would back off their demands, but it will be a fight to the finish and I think their crowd is losing now, particulary after the last election.
Watcher,
Where in the constitution is the right for workers to organize, abortion (kill unborn babies) Again, its a liberal ruling not in the Constitution or any of its amendments. The reason conservatives talk about the Constitution is that liberals all wish the Constitution didnt exsist.
I am still waiting to see MSNBC, CNN, ABC,NBC, CBS. Ask a democrat about the threatning of violence, Nazi signs, Target bulls eye over a picture of the WI governor. and why not go ahead and call them racists too… Just for good measure. How does that feel?
Guys, help me understand. I have tried to find in the constitution outlining the existence of Medicare and Social Security, and I just can’t find it. Maybe we should scrap these programs too? Why should my tax dollars be supporting old people? After-all, we need a constitutional reason for everything. Right?
Tom
This has NOTHING to do with deaqth panels and too expensive to keep alive. Get your facts straight before you start positing demons.
and if this baby, whose own parents say they know he will not survive and who agree he is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery….and who also had another child die of the same neurpoligical disease,is transported to the Detroit hospital, who do you think will pay that bill? you are the one so concerned about costs…seems you talk out of two sides of your mouth. You harahgue about costs, but yet when you get an opportunity to spread fear about the totally imaginary death panels, you forget all about it.
In this case, why the hospital didn’t do the trach and get the parents to sign a release and let them take the baby home is beyond me…but it was NOT for the reasons about which you are fulminating.
Watcher, the choice is easy, freedom and respect for life first, then we can address costs in a conpassionate way. Conservatives do think with both lobes. And so, how do you characterize the involvement of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board? And, if you don’t know their motivation, how is it you raise the issue of cost?
Very interesting, Tom, thanks for the additional information. The arguments against universal care all seem to be distorted by leaving out very important facts. Just another case of the right wing conservatives changing the “facts” to fit their argument.
Tell the truth guys, or don’t say anything.
Good post Tom. I think Conservatives have big issues with all unions who are doing great damage to our economy and society. They have the entitlement mentality and expect the rest of us to continue to fund their exhorbitant salary and benefit packages on an ever increasing spiral. One thing they forgot is that the larder is bare now. We have reached the tipping point and the country and states are now broke. We are not competitive now and union labor is not productive to compete with the world. It really doesn’t matter whether it is public or private.
I cannot help but find it ironic the feds leave it to the states as to whether we can mandate a helmet is worn while riding a motorcycle, and many states do not require such safety equipment be used on the basis of personal freedom, while the same folks who have no problem there will mandate that all must buy into health insurance regardless of whether they want it or not.
Was that really Obama’s justice department using the argument: “we’re ahead 3-2 now”? I hate to say it, but that equates perfectly with Eric Holder’s understanding of constitutional law…interesting, but if we were to use the 3-2 method, wouldn’t that equate to a dismissal in a civil case and an equital in a criminal case?
The hidden agenda of the Tea party and GOP is now being revealed: it was supposed to be about the Benjamins, but has turned much more ugly, with union busting, etc.
You wonder why you might need public unions? I will tell you: the state legislators in most states have consistently robbed or not funded their portion of the benefits package they promised. Also, when govt coffers are flush, it should be reasonably assumed that public unions may bargain to receive a share of the abundance…that’s what unions do.
Unfortunately, instead of watchdogging the funds legislators should have deposited into the benefits funds, unions pressed for increased benefits, and self seeking politicians fed this. Because the system was misused, is no reason to abandon the system.
And, by the way, where is the rest of the debate on controlling costs and reducing deficits? Where is the INCREASE TAXES part? Why is it always services to those that need them most or services that the middle class depends on (Pell grants, adequate teachers, extracurricular activites, etc., etc., etc.) that fall under the GOP chopping block while they absolutely ignore the rest of the equation…raise taxes.
If what is happening in WI is a harbinger of the future under GOP/TP rule, I wonder how long it will be before McCarthyism begins anew.
You who are so fond of spoouting statistics: what about the dwindling middle class? What about the concentration of wealth in the hands of the very rich few? What about preserving a viable and hopeful middle class that is the backbone of our democracy? Why do you statistic spouters never mention those stats also….or are those stats part of the world Progressive conspiracy as you chose to distort other facts?
The Constitution cuts both ways. And, the blogger that pointed out the many amendments, is correct; if you want to go back to the 1700’s, shall we reinstitute slavery? Prevent non property owners from voting? End civil rights? GET REAL
TRUST ME on this: the GOP did NOT get a mandate in 2010 to do what they are now starting to do. They are taking the disaffected with both parties vote as a mandate….and they are WRONG. 2012 will be more interesting than I originally anticipated…
Actually watcher, it was the hidden agenda of the Progressive Socialists that was revealed. After the Tea Party woke America up from its slumber and found out what Obama and his minions were up to, the voters gave him and his followers in Congress a “shellacking”. The Tea Party did the country a great service to disrupt the march towards a Socialistic society. The Wisconsin troubles have revealed how bad the unions and their cushy contracts are and how they are bankrupting most states that have big union presence. By the time the dust clears, it may result in every state being right to work states. These rust belt states have lost millions of jobs in the past 20 years. People have left them to go south to find jobs. Union’s are the scourge on the economy and need to be reduced or eliminated in this modern society.
Watcher: first of all, let me express you have real feelings and opinions, but you were able to avoid calling names, although the scare comment about McCarthyism comes close, but you didn’t call us Nazis, teabaggers, etc. So kudos to you for being able to discuss what you believe without calling names.
On some points we agree, many state legislatures and/or governors have robbed pension plans; as a former resident of the great state of Illinois, I can tell you that is 100% correct. I can also identify the number one culprit: Rod Blagojevich. He took from pension funds, he took what he called ‘excess taxes’ that came in to the highway fund and paid for his idea of utopia…he also failed to pay doctors, hospitals, schools, etc; now Illinois is billions in the red.
I grew up in a union family and recall many spirited discussions with my father about union waste; while he supported unions he agreed on almost every point. The problem is, unions have gone hand in hand with poor management in putting businesses ‘out of business’; GM is a perfect example; it includes both the ‘fatcats’ many disparage, and also the blinded union braintrust that would break the company’s back to get their pound of flesh even if it put them out of business; if it wasn’t for major govt intervention, we’d only have one domestic auto producer left, and that’s still questionable when you consider the number of foreign produced models created by our domestic producers.
I do not believe you can force someone to buy a product of commerce they choose not to buy. If the govt takes over all medical care, they will have the right to impose a tax on all who can pay to run it, but please please please do not do that. When we share the horror stories of the Canadian and British systems, we are not lying.
I believe smaller govt is what allowed this country to grow into what it was meant to be. I’d love to give it a chance to prove American excellence again. I have no war with unions, but even the great leaders of the liberal past did not want collective bargaining powers to go to govt employees nor teachers. When was the last time we saw a teachers union come out in favor of something that actually taught one more child? I don’t know about you, but I work in a position where I am graded upon my own production and the production of my subordinates. If they fail, I fail. It doesn’t work that way in a teachers union.
I’m not for banning unions; many have run their course, but if people want collective bargaining, they can request it and if enough agree, they can unionize. I also respect the right of the employer to terminate all employees who come to such an agreement. It’s a risk for both sides. I do not see where unions for public entities have been forced to live within their means, however. Considering the conflicts of interest that occur with various elected parties, that alone makes the point collective bargaining for jobs that rely on elected govt official ultimately will lead to mismanagement at a minimum and corruption at the worst.
Watcher, How many tracks can you run on.
First, let me clue you in on the fact that government surpluses are not “profits” to be shared with Public sector unions. A surplus is owned by the taxpayers and should be returned, not spent. You can’t seem to distinguish between the two types of unioins, so let me help you. Private sector unions look for a share of the profits made from their work; public sector workers DO NOT produce a profit with their hard work, rather they relying on tax dollars for their pay. Taxpayers are not Corporate Executives; nor are they corporate conglomerates dishes out low pay to increase profits or forcing employees to work in poor environments. Public sector worker are valued on the service they provide to the taxpayer, not on the profits they return to a business owner. There is no correlation between the two in this fundemental equation. The only reason that public sector unions exist it to feed political contributions so unions can exert power for their non union ideological positions AND also to give the unions control over vasts sums of money for medical plans etc which they can use to, use guessed it, develop profits or pay their executive committee members (Wisc teachers had their own insurance company). I think you should re-think your union allegiance and look at whether big unions are in it for the little guy or in it for big union management.
Second, politicians guaranteed public worker benefits, so I don’t see how that requires union membership unless you think that public workers striking against THE PUBLIC makes sense.
Your “raise taxes” cry has been flogged to death. Perhaps you haven’t noticed but the American people are at a tipping point where raising taxes is not an option since most taxpayers have hit their limit. The people have realized that “raising taxes” is not an option since politicians can’t be trusted to use the money to control costs. There are inumerable examples of politicians using the new tax revenues to fund NEW spending, so we have come to the conclusion that starving the politicians is the only way to get true defict control. We have stopped falling for the “lock box” arguments and the argument that the revenue will be dedicated soley to this project etc since the politicians find a way around each of these mollifying tax increase arguments.
As for your tired middle class disappearing argument. I point you to what an inflationary driver such as the obscene spending we see in DC will do to middle class 401k savings. I also would mention that the studies of the disappearing middle class are all over the board and depend largely on how you define middle class.
If you have concern for the middle class, look for what the public sector unions are doing. They are pitting college educated middle class workers (teachers) against middle class taxpaying public trying to create a two-tier middle class, those who pay for their penisnon, and those who also have to pay for public service workers pensions. There isn’t enough money to pay for both, The time has come where Taxpayers are saying that they can only pay for one pension and the Public worker should help pay for theirs.
Please don’t try the argument that the PSW are lower paid. That myth is desolving rapidly as the facts about guarnateed medical paid from early retirement (55 to medicare kicks in) and pensions with high costs of living) have stripped that argument bare. They may have equal pay or slightly less but the benefits raise the TOTAL pay to well above the average worker.
The GOP has a mandate to control costs, and the pay, pensions, and medical for state workers has eaten up a large share of current and future state budgets demands that the problem be solved, so castigating the Reps for addressing this issue is like trying to ignore the elephant in the room.
Well said Tom. Your analogy about ignoring the elephant in the room is very good. The elephant ie Republicans are the ones who are trying to restore fiscal sanity to the states and the Federal Government. The people spoke on 11-2 and elected them to get the spending under control. The left wing and unions are fighting them tooth and nail, but they are fighting a losing battle with the taxpayers of this country and their days are numbered.
LOL….. Way too funny Watcher.
Funny how a liberal when confronted with facts, logic and reason, reverts to an emotional outburst of ridicule and factless name calling “McCathyism”? I love your statement “when govt coffers are flush, it should be reasonably assumed that public unions may bargain to receive a share of the abundance…that’s what unions do.”
SO DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT? IT IS OUR MONEY IDIOT, NOT GOVERNMENTS!WE THE TAX PAYERS ARE THE GOVERNMENT KNUCKLEHEAD!
Comon, Watcher you can do better than that. Here is a reality check for you dude.
1 We are Broke because of Government Unions, and over spending!
2.Social Security is Broke, you will have to wait until your 69 to retire.
3.Government workers should not make more than the average private sector employee makes. 40K or something near that, with a matching 401k and half your healthcare paid for. Welcome to the private sector.
4. How about your 2 weeks off paid vacation a year. Again, welcome to the private sector.
5. If a government worker does not do a good job someone should be able to fire them, Just like us.
Tom
Insofar as the costs of supporting the benefits levels paid to public employees are more than the private sector, I agree. Insofar as these costs are debilitating state and municipal governments, I agree. I do NOT agree with busting the union in WI AFTER the benefits concessions were made. This is an over reach.
Insofar as the “dwindling” middle class being a myth, and the wealth concentration continuing to concentrate (what is the latest stat….that less than 1% of the population controls in excess of 20% of wealth in this country)you want to brush all this aside…as you alkways do…if it doesn’t agree with your world view. Sorry, even conservative stat monitors concur…so then, what is your solution?
And, you have not responded to the second part of the eaquation. OF COURSE any liberal does not want waste or duplication. If I were weilding the hatchet, I would start with congressional perks, staffs, equipment, travel, franking privileges, healthcare, pensions, etc. and move on down the line.
But to ignore the fact that the BIG BIG ELEPHANT in the room which is what you tend to do, that the wealthier are NOT paying their fairshare and have benefitted mightily and overproportionally from the tax provisions of the recent decades, is not being realistic. And, Just as I am not supposed to give you the old saw about “public empoloyees make less than the private sector” do not begin to tell me that lower taxes on the wealthy benefit the segment that create jobs. LOOK at the stats, not the propaganda.
although I tried to keep an open mind at the time when the TP and Gopers swept in in 2010, I feared that they would overstep whatever perceived mandate they may have had, which was to help balance the budget. But the agenda now comes out, as I also feared…As I said, the Constitution cuts both ways…I’d rather have someone’s hand in my pocket than in my bedroom or in my church…I predict that the GOP/TP will be unable to resist overstepping the “mandate” they think they had, and will crash and burn due to high handed, uncompromising, non negotiating ways.
Watcher,
I hope that you do know that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was against the right of government workers to use collective bargaining, Thats right FDR would most likely not have supported the workers in WI.
Watcher are we not talking about the unconstitutional healthcare law your liberal congress enacted in the dark of night in the back rooms of the capital building.
By the way the union members are not middle class america, they are above middle class america now. Non union people are not sympathetic to them. They get paid 70K a year, get 8 weeks off, Retire in 20 years and free healthcare for life. Did I mention he delivers your mail.
Retire in 20 years with full benefits, paid for mostly by taxpayers! Who in the private sector gets those kinds of benefits? (only those grandfathered in to previous union agreements – newbies don’t get anywhere near the same benefits).
According to the United Auto Workers themselves, (in a statement just after the concessions made to save the “big three” automakers): The AVERAGE UAW worker, with usually just a high school education, and AFTER the concessions, makes a total wage of $110,000 per year.
And the real argument in Wisconsin is simply whether or not unions can REQUIRE everyone to belong. They hide the real argument in titles that don’t mean anything, i.e. “collective bargaining” is a RIGHT given to every American. Mandated union membership is a right?
Watcher, let me concede your 1% argument for a moment. You tell me what % of their wealth (not just income)shouldthey give to all forms of government. Note: I am not looking for how much of the inoome tax % they pay. Is it 60,70,80%.
Also, do you believe that if one person gets rich, it is at the expense of another. In other words, must every dollar that a rich person makes comes out of your pocket or some poor person’s pocket.
Do you believe that income and wealth is a fixed finite amount, or that gross wealth, all the wealth in the country, neither contacts nor expands?
You tell me, but first let me guess that your answers are 80%, and yes to everything else. That means, we cannot have a rational discussion about fairness; nor can we have a real discussion about controlling spending.
As for public sector unions, please tell me why college educated workers need protection from the public they serve. Or, in the alternative, tell me why a public sector union is needed to improve their work environment and protect them for harsh or dangerous conditions. Let me help you a bit, union membership has dropped due to their success. Most of the issues that brought attention to the need for a union (e.g thos conditions covered inUpton Sinclair’s The Jungle) have long since been codified in Labor laws, OSHA regs, EEOC rules and a host of other regulatory dicktats.
Public sector unions came about, for the most part, when JFK saw how much the dues meant to elections and JFK let the genie out of the bottle. The 70s fanned the flames when Teachers Unions really morphed into today’s union movement, again, supporting political causes rather than conditions. Oh yes, pay and benefits were also a part of the process and really what we are now left with is a political dues machine and benefits machine disguised as what used to be a 19th and 20th century noble movement.
What is going on now in Wisc and elsewhere is an attempt by conservatives to control costs by controlling this out of date and uncontrollable movement. Parenthetically, I limit this debate to the public sector as I really don’t care about the battle between profit making companies and their employees.
An attempt to return more control to the state and local government is what is need to lead the charge against overspending and overcommittment. Both state and local citizens have realized that the election of their fellow citizens has been partially countermanded by having their election official work with their Union partners to change work rules, compensation, and other critical functions and dutes which tend to hamstring state and local governments while simultaneously creating additinal cost.
In essence we now have bifurcated our government by adding these unelected partners to the mix and thus lessened the affect of what our elected officials can accomplish with the mandates that the election gave them. Much of what Gov Walker is looking to do is to tip the scale back to the taxpayer, where the power rightly belongs.
By the way, it would seek that either you are the second or third iteration of Cassandra, or am I wrong?
Well, Sarah, I guess that depends on what you call middle class.
But, like the “wealthy” there are really so few of those union workers left now…after the nabobs have exported their jobs, concessions have been forced, etc. So what is so wrong with someone who builds cars or tractors making a good living?
And, yes, I do know that FDR did not support public unions, nor Meany, et. al. And I do kinow that governments do not make “profits”….Tom, you put that word in my mouth, I didn’t.
And, Sarah, for one who accuses me of falling back on “McCarthyism” rather than “fact, logic or reason”and “reverts to factless Name calling” then goes on to call me an idiot and a knuckleheads, I would suggest you are far more guilty than I. But again, I forgot, you are the only shinijg light and true believer. Everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. All Hail, Sarah, Regina.
What is wrong with someone who builds cars or tractors making a good living? Nothing if their wages represent what they contribute to the system. But if they want ME to pay more than the product is worth just so they can have fat cat jobs (high school education, semi-skilled workers making $110,000 per year?) where the fat comes out of my pocket, they can forget it. They had control until the Japs started making MUCH better cars at lower prices. Then their model was unsustainable.
Talk about being a hypocrite. I am still waiting for all the liberals who bashed the Tea Party for being violent and partisan (Nancy Pelosi almost cried saying how much they looked like the KKK) LOL…I am still waiting on these same wacko’s to look at the signs the Unions are walking around with in WI.
I will feel sorry for them when someone gives me a pension at age 45 and free healthcare and 6 weeks paid vacation a year.
Watcher, I just love your facts, Here is your statement, with the facts after.
“the BIG BIG ELEPHANT in the room, that the wealthier are NOT paying their fairshare and have benefitted mightily and overproportionally from the tax provisions of the recent decades, is not being realistic. And, Just as I am not supposed to give you the old saw about “public empoloyees make less than the private sector” do not begin to tell me that lower taxes on the wealthy benefit the segment that create jobs. LOOK at the stats, not the propaganda” LOLOLOLOLOL……
2009 Federal Income Statistics.
The top 5% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes.
The bottom 40% do not pay any Federal Income Taxes.
Of the top 10% of earners 80% of those are small business owners who employ 70% of all workers in this country.
I think they are paying their fair share dont you?
You go girl! Poor watcher is in over his/her head in this debate. Watcher is a true redistribution of wealth Progressive. He/she obviously doesn’t understand about who pays the taxes in this country. Here is a good statistic to chew on. The IRS takes in 200 Bil per month in taxes. The government can’t seem to operate on that lofty amount and spends roughly 300 bil per month leading to record deficits. There is no doubt the Government behomoth is far too large and is trying to do too much and is wasting too much. Who in this administration or Congress is advocating cutting out the fraud and waste in Government. We wouldn’t have near the fiscal problems if we got serious on that one issue. Public sector unions are responsible for a lot of the problem, but big spending politicians and lack of oversight on Government programs, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements are at fault for much of the rest. This country is broke and needs a serious financial audit and overhaul.
Tom, I am inclined to believe this is Cassandra disguised as Watcher. Pretty much all the same Progressive Liberal talking points. The unions and politicians are figuratively if not literally in bed with one another. The unions give union dues from members to politicians in order to secure and maintain the gravy train of wages and benefits, all at the taxpayers expense. It is no wonder they are screaming so loudly in Wisconsin and bringing in sympathizers from other states. Their applecart has been overturned by Walker. Wisonsin’s Senators fled the state so they wouldn’t have to vote trying to forestall the legislation. Now, they are going to force Walker to lay off state employees because the well is dry. This is coming to a head and unions will lose because the taxpayers see what they are up to. I hope all the other blue states in this predicament will do the same thing. Walker, you hang in there. The folks are on your side.
However, the “billions” the hospitals get in federal subsidies for treating the uninsured do not begin to cover the cost, hence costs to those who can pay have to be inflated.
Either way you look at it, we the taxpayers and users end up paying not only our premiums but extra taxes to make sure everyone can be treated.
For some strange reason, the cost to us in higher taxes doesn’t seem to be factored into the cost and impact of mandatory universal care.
If the health care bill is felt to be unconstitutional, then can we assume those who feel that way will/have rejected:
social security,
medicare,
medicaid,
federally subsidized ethanol for our gasoline (an incredible waste by the way, with no net positive effect)and likewise
will not drive on our federally mandated and paid for by universal federal taxation highways, (it’s not ok for them to drive on state highways either since they are all subsidized by federal money).
Likewise, one must assume, they will voluntarily not buy any food items that cross state lines since they are governed by federal rules and inspection paid for by federal taxes, nor will the be allowed to
fly since the entire system of air traffic control and airport construction and maintenance are paid for by either federal taxes or federal surcharges.
Nor can they use any form of modern communication since they are either paid for, subsidized by or universally governed by the feds, using our taxes.
Yes, it is true one can function in this country free of virtually all federal influence, subsidies, payments, etc. – the Mennonites already do so, and are always looking for new converts.
W.R. I am afraid you lost me.
As for the unconstitiutionality of SS, Medicare, you might be on the right track; however, the obvious difference is that we pay taxes for the benefits rather than being forced to buy a product from a private sector business. With SS, the tag has been that we have paid in and should expect a “return” of that money, albeit by another generation. The Congress feels comforable with legislating a “tax”, but you will note that Obama scrupiously avoided calling the mandate a “tax” since adding more taxes to an alreay overtaxed population was a no-go from the get go.
The US Middle Class has one of the lowest tax burdens in the developed world, except for those who live in states like NY, NJ, Mass., etc.
Temblor – key word is middle class. not the wealthier individuals. The US have one of the most burdensome tax codes in the world.
Over the years with our wonderful democratic political system which has been bastardized to allow for Unions to own democrats, and big Industry lobbiest to own Republicans, we find ourselves with a tax code that does not make any since.
FLAT FAIR TAX OR A CONSUMPTION TAX. THIS IS THE ONLY IT WORKS FAIRLY FOR ALL.
It would be funny to see the lobbiest with nothing to talk about in Washington if we went to a flat tax system or an even consumption tax. No penalty for products! Next thing you see is a higher tax on McDonalds or Coca Cola.
A flat tax is what we should all look to but it won’t solve the other issue of corporations or unions lobbying the goverment for corp subsidies (e.g. ethanol (ADM) or green technology GE) benefits and pay (public sector unions). We can make the tax coder fairer but we have to rein in the size of government it toto to get the maximum effect.
Government at all levels is so corrupt it will take a Herculean effort to reign it in. Special interests (lobbyists) have their tentacles deeply inbedded into the political process. Government reform should ban all lobbying activity and they shouldn’t be allowed to visit or have appointments with Congress. The money is too tempting and the public’s interest is not served well. If we do these things and reform the tax code to a fair or flat tax, we can pull ourselves out of this serious jam.
The Dems don’t want any changes to the tax code which is very “progressive”. They want to expand the IRS and hire thousands more to enforce Obamacare and fine or tax those who don’t want it. They are in favor of ever increasing the size and scope of government so they can regulate, tax and impose their will on every facet of our life. Not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, is it?
And yet Shrub’s administration oversaw the largest increase in federal debt in history, even when adjusted for inflation, and the Republicans and conservatives want to blame it all on Obama, who has only been in office for 2 years.
Temblor, in 8 years Bush had a cumulative defict of 2.1 Trillion. At no time did the annual deficit approach a Trillion dollars. This President had a 1.4 Trillion defict followed by a 1.3 Trillion deficit with a deficit of 1.6 Trillion for this fiscal year and 1.1 Trillion for next fiscal year, fot an actual or total in four years of 5.4 for his term (see Fed Gov websites). So, you are right, this President has done more damaage to the economy in two years than Bush did in 8 years (and I am not a fan of Bush spending and deficits). The debt will go from a total of 11.4 Trillion under Bush to a projected 15.5 Trillion when Obama is tossed out. That is quite an accomplishment.
Everyone forgets one very important fact:
A President is elected in Nov., takes office the following Jan., but the budget is passed the preceding Oct. Obama had nothing to do with the ’08 – ’09 budget, he only inherited it.
Bush also passed the stimulus bill, not Obama. It was a done deal when Obama took office. Obama did, however, notice that it was a pure give away, no requirement that the money be paid back. He changed that, requiring the recipients to put up collateral, and to pay a handsome rate of interest.
EVERYONE has now paid the government back except Chrysler who hasn’t paid any back, and AIG who has paid a goodly portion back, but not all. And the government has mostly been paid back and to boot made a handsome profit, all thanks to Obama.
Obama also inherited the recession, the housing bust, Freddie and Fannie, etc. These were all led by Bush and his minions who weren’t watching the store and didn’t want to cramp Wall Street’s style. And don’t forget who started the two wars, one necessary, the second started to just show he was a better man than his father (Cheney, by the way, strongly advised Bush Sr. NOT to invade Iraq, but somehow had changed his mind by the time Jr. got in – could it have something to do with his by then developed very strong financial ties to the oil industry, who benefited mightily when the invasion drove up the price of oil?
Temblor, your facts are shaky, The Trouble Relief Assets Program of nearly 1 Trillion was voted for by Mr. O. The profits etc were all built in by Pualson. It is true that about 1/2 has been paid back with interest, mostly from the big banks, e.g. Paulson’s Goldman and Sach, but there are a huge number of other companies, including AIG, GM, and Chrysler who paid a small portion back but mostly exchanged stock for the debt, most of which will never reach value enough to ever pay back the “loan”.
The stimulus bill of another 1 Trillion, was all Big O and was used mainly to prop up state and local employment. Now that it is running out, we see what is happening to the states.
As far as the housing market which set this mess off, it was relaxed mortgage requirements that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd demanded that Fred and Fan insurer. The Banks and mortage company then relaxed their standard and issued hure amounts of sub prime (poor credit risk) loans. They also hedged their bets by buying insurance from AIG (crredit default swaps). When all of this failed, the system nearly went down. You want so much to blame Bush, but he did try to get Congress to reform Fred & Fan but he couldn’t get a Demo Congress to do so. The warning signs were their (see Brooksley Born) but ignored. You might also look to see who ran Fred and Fan and check out who Franklin Raines and Jamie Goerlich (clintonistas) and how they feasted on bonuses based on whole cloth “profits”.
While you are at it, look up “crony capitalism” and then check out Jeffrey Immelts connection to Big O. GE’s CEO had set his sights on over 60 Billion in sales to the Feds for “green technology” and green machines. Unfortunately for GE and their stockholders, this isn’t working out so well, so green Jeff is not becoming part of the Admin.
You really need to open your eyes about the state of the Demo party and how the Demo have morphed into something that JFK would never recognize.
Sorry, I meant TARP not stimulus…
temblor,
Its one thing to miss speak, Its another to blattenly lie. Obama has overseen the largest expansion of debt in our countries history. FACT!
You can lie about numbers but numbers do not lie!
How is that “Change” working out for you?
Temblor,
You also forget that Congress spends money and since 2006 untile 2011 Congress has been in the sole hands of liberal democrats. So for the last 2 years of Bushes Terms Spending doubled, and by the way we did have 2 wars and a housing bust which spilled onto Wallstreet by the selling of mortgage backed securities. created by the likes of Bwarney Fwank and Chris Dudd with Fannie and Freddie.
But really you can not say with a straight face that Bush spent more than Obama. That is just plan Stupid.
I am afraid that Obama has dug such a deep financial hole for this country that we will not be able to dig our way out. The spending cuts proposed so far will not make much of a dent. The Congress needs to take a very serious approach and cut all departments or consolidate many of them, cut the Federal workforce by 500,000 and do serious entitlement reform which includes a massive effort to cut fraud and waste from Medicare, Medicaid and numerous government programs which need to be cancelled entirely. Politicians have historically not had the intestinal fortitude to do these things and lobbbyists and special interests will keep giving them money to not do the necessary cuts. The taxpayers ox will continue to get gored for years to come. Can anyone say “Bankruptcy”?
In 2012 we need a new candidate to run. There is not one of the GOP candidates that I believe is the one right now.
Where is Ronald Reagan when you need him again?
2012 An end to an Error!
Had enough “Change” yet?
There are some really good GOP Govs (Christie – NJ, Jindal – LA, McConnel – VA, Walker – WI). Unfortunately none of them are goin to run in 2012. I agree there isn’t anyone out there to get excited about. I like Palin and think she might be the right choice. The state controlled media will tell you who they fear by attacking them. They don’t attack McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, etc. They are constantly attacking Palin and Walker. I think Palin is more electable then a lot of people think. There are always going to be people who won’t vote for someone no matter what but the same holds true for the person they are running against.
State controlled media?
Did anyone see the report that came out about the massive waste of the Federal Government? There is so much overlap and duplication between the departments, agencies and sub agencies it amounts to several hundred billions of dollars. When the Republicans go after cuts in the budget, they should home in on cutting out all these departments, programs, duplications. We the People have allowed these politicians to create this mess and now they have to do something about it. We will hold them accountable.
Yeah, but if you try to clean it up, you create even more unemployment, of people who aren’t otherwise employable at all!
Ladies and Gentleman, a quintessential example of obtuse thought? Or just a poor attempt at sarcasm?
Denial isn’t just a river in Africa. Yes, the GOP made a lot of mistakes. Keep in mind that the Democrats controlled congress during Bush’s last two years and they were the ones that passed the stimulus bill. Did Bush make a mistake by signing it? Yes, but Bush like his father is not a conservative.
Temblor, State controlled media or drive by media = NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, AP, MSNBC, NY Times, or any non-objective media outlet. I would like to know how the media would have reacted to Pres Palin doing what Obama has done with Wisconsin or the Middle East. Our President is a community agitator who does not like the USA as it was founded.
The media used to fancy itself as the “fourth branch” of government. It now seems to be the “dead branch” of gov. College journalism has now focused their graduates on “changing the world” rather than on reporting facts and letting the reader determine the outcome. Changing the world has morphed into a crusade for “social justice”. Seems every journalist now want a “Che” or Woodward/Burnstein moment to validate their decision to go into this low paying profession. The bias to the left is so pronounced that it is indisputable; however, they still try to convince themselves they are beyond partisanship. They are so blinded by their ideology that they haven’t even noticed that the cat has long since left the bag.
I find it funny that the arch conservatives all see the press as “liberal”. Don’t they read any of the plethora of conservative publications, watch or listen to any of the conservative broadcasts?
Temblor, I think you got a little mixed up on your facts. The TARP was passed under Bush, but the Stimulus was Obama all the way. Where are all those shovel ready jobs created? If the TARP has been largely paid back, where is the money? The Stimulus hasn’t all been spent. Why not apply it to the debt? It certainly didn’t create many jobs, did it? By the way, Obama did have something to do with the 08-09 budget. As a junior Senator, he voted for it in the Democratically controlled Congress headed by the infamous Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Bush should have vetoed it and scaled it way back, but didn’t to his detriment.
Yes, the Stimulus was passed during Obama’s administration and signed by Obama, but I don’t recall any Republicans screaming “Don’t do it!” In fact, they were all screaming that Obama was not doing enough to create new jobs, starting with the day he took the oath!
The TARP became law Oct. 3, 2008, not only before Obama took the oath of office, but before the election! So, according to tradition, it is assigned to Bush, who signed it.
The Washington Post has a great graphic showing the annual deficits under Bush (who signed all the budgets) and Obama, unfortunately they ascribe the ’09 deficit to Obama when, as President, he had nothing to do with it, it was passed in Oct. ’08, again before the election and before he took to oath of office. The ’09 budget was signed into law by Bush.
Unfortunately, I can’t get the graphic to copy and paste over.
Google “Bush Deficits” to find the link to the graphic. Be sure to go to the link to the latest one, the first that shows is outdated.
Much as one may dislike Obama, the plain fact is the economic situation existed before he took office, he didn’t create it. And if you want to criticize budgets, take a look at the Republicans proposed budget. What a laugh.
I wonder why Obama/Pelosi/Reid had no budget at all for 2010. They just kept passing continuing resolutions to fund the government. The answer is they didn’t have a clue and didn’t want the people finding out how much money they were spending and how they were running up a 1.3Trillion with a T debt. Bush’s budgets were way out of line, but pale in comparison to the Progressive Liberal spending of the past 2 years. In fact, Obama has a bigger deficit in 2 years than Bush had in 8. His stimulus was a big bust and no amount of spinning will change that. If this government is not brought under control soon, we will see Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see until the country implodes.
According to the Constitution, the budget is supposed to originate in the House…
I agree the deficit must be brought under control, but you can’t do it the way the Republicans and TP’s want to do it. They are tackling the elephant’s right front toenail.
It’s going to take adjustments to entitlements, and, oh my goodness, !HIGHER TAXES! to make any impact. But, of course, Republicans and TP’s are dead set against both, instead they want to kill Sesame Street!
Higher taxes, mmmmm, that should help the economy and jobs! LOL.
How about the president support the debt commission he created and take thier reccomendations of a reduction in the tax rate for higher earners as they create jobs and keep this economy going and make everyone pay something to the Feds for taxes. The bottom 40% PAY NOTHING AT ALL! and address “entitlements” Gosh! I hate that word, it is such an ozymoron.
Sorry liberals and Socialist Unions, Your day has past, and we all know how to add and subtract now, Unfortunately for the Country you have done nothing but subtract from the Federal reserve and add to our national debt. The Jig is up!
Temblor, again, you are shaky on your facts. The stimulus was opposed by Repubs as it represented the Keynesian multiplier philosophy that the gov can use money to “invest” and get a return. That philosophy has been discredited and more so with the recent 1 Trillion dollar effort that produced nothing. What it did do was bolster states revenue so public sector workers who pay union dues to the Dems could keep their jobs. Even the Pres had to admit that the stimulus didn’t produce any “shovel ready” jobs.
You can attempt to convince yourself that Bush’s deficits are like Obams’s but I don’t see how you escape the difference between BILLIONS and TRILLIONS.
The “plethora” of conservative media outlets aren’t network tv stations. Journalism is supposed to be objective. There is nothing objective about today’s media. Fox is truly fair and balanced. Liberals may not agree with this because they are used to their cronies at the other media outlets spinning every story the way the liberals want them to.
I agree, you can’t get more fair and balanced than Glen Beck. Rush Limbaugh is superb too.
I detect a note of sarcasm Temblor. What about your “objective” reporters at ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS,CNN? No one is arguing that Beck and Limbaugh are fair and balanced. They are reporting from the Conservative viewpoint and informing the public about what is going on in the Progressive Liberal movement and alerting the public. They have succeeded in waking up America as evidenced by the recent “shellacking” given to the minion followers of Obama and his crowd.
Since when is Rush on Fox News? Like it or not Rush is audited and is proven to be right over 98% of the time. How many liberals are right over 98% of the time? ZERO.
I didn’t say Rush was on Fox News. Who audits him, the ultra conservatives?
Ahh tax increases, the liberals answer to everything. Please explain to me how increasing taxes is going to help increase revenues? If you are a business owner are you going to be motivated to grow your business and hire more employees if the govt is taking more money out of your pocket? As an individual are you going to spend more money when you have more money in your pocket or when you have less money in your pocket? Raising taxes will send us into a depression.
NCA, you are so right. If only we could get our friends on the left to give us an idea of where they break on the % of income that citizens should devote to Local, State and Federal government, including property taxes, sales taxes, fees etc. We are at 50% now and most Americans think that is enough. If you think that the government has an unlimited ability to meet you every want or desire, then percetages are irrelevant and that seems to be where the left has chosen to reside.
There is no doubt government at all levels need serious reforms because the money just isn’t there anymore and the folks will not allow more tax increases. I cite the GAO report that revealed the morass of duplication, waste and outright fraud that plagues this monstrous government. Many of the departments and agencies are doing the same thing trying to justify their existence. Terribly inefficient and wasteful. The Federal Government in particular needs a complete house cleaning with all unnecesary programs cut or eliminated. Medicare and Medicaid needs a watchdog who will identify fraud and abuse. Potential savings of $100 Bil per year if it is cleaned up. The budget could be brought under control in a few short years if this country operated a leaner, more efficient government. The mentally challenged Progressive Liberals will fight this all the way because they want their union employees to continue to have their jobs creating the massive debt the country has accumulated over a period of decades. The bottom line is “Government is too big and does not serve the citizens well”.
I am kind of glad that the economy is where it is because it brings logic, reason and fiscal responsibility back to the fore front again.
Wisconsin has a 3.6 billion deficit! with no way to print money unlike the unions bit*h Obama can, they are facing reason and fiscal responsibility. It is hillarious to listen to them try to explain that they need to keep their “entitlement pensions” and non contributed healthcare cost while the rest of us look for quarters to pay for groceries.
I think the progressives think they are on the verge of creating their socialist/ communist revolution. I believe just the oposite. We are on the verge of eliminating Unions and waste from Government and putting ourselves on a path to fiscal responsibility which is necessary for the continued superior position financially of the United States of Amercia. The land of Oportunity not the land of entitlement!
Sarah, This is going to be the roughest fight in American Political history. You are right saying the Progressive Socialists think this is their time to change America for good to their version of Socialist Utopia. A funny thing happened on 11-2. They got shellacked. The tide has now turned and these people are screaming, jumping up and down and threatening violence to get their way. Hopefully, there are enough good people to shut their agenda down and return this country to sanity and fiscal responsibility.