Largest March on Washington

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ericsson1228d, Sep 12, 2009.

  1. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    I decided to cite a UK newspaper website, to avoid the politicization of this report, since FoxNews, etc would be dismissed by many. .

    Today, estimates show that nearly TWO MILLION people marched on Washington today to protest Obama, his mandates, and Pelosi.

    So, while many of you on this board cite a "lunatic fringe," that opposed Obama, I think this public display shows that this viewpoint is not some extremist "fringe" viewpoint.

    Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration | Mail Online

    Oh, and it's two million that showed up, not two million "Mickey Mouses" that ACORN registered for the event.
     
  2. cruztbone

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Capitola CA USA
    there were perhaps ten thousand white, middle age grumps who are pissed because their JUST US economic system might have to expand to include other Americans who work hard every day and dont have access to medical insurance. Dick Armey (what an appropriate name for the worst majority leader ever in the US house of reps) again showed his hatred for any government intervention that would threaten the top two percent of income homes in the US. He was a traitor to the US constitution then, and his RIDCULOUS organization does the same now. The important event was in Minneapolis, where president Obama finally took off the gloves to counteract right- wing thuggery such as appears above. Ericsson, go drink your tea and bag your stupidity.
     
  3. bstexas

    bstexas New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    579
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Houston
    I wouldn't have doubted that it was two million that showed up. The Republicans are scared as shit. Thank God I'm not one of them. The 700-800 billion that Bush started using to bail out the banking system started the ball rolling. Not to mention the billions of dollars a year that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were costing (off the books of course). This kind of back and forth bull can go on for days and years about blaming who spent what and why. So just live with it. The banking system/economy/country is not on the brink of another Great Depression thanks to Obama dumping some money into the system to bail some industries and bring confidence back. Is everything peachy now? No way, but it sure is better than it was exactly one year ago from today. And will get better as the banks pay their loans off, people start spending a little more and pumping up the economy again. Go ahead and whine. It could have ben so much worse had Obama NOT spent.
     
  4. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    Name calling as a response to a news item. How typical. The only response your weak mind can muster. Good on you and your beloved party.
     
    #4 Ericsson1228d, Sep 12, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  5. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    Really? Unemployment is WORSE than even OBAMA estimated it would be if he DIDN'T spend the money.

    I'll chalk that one up to him not having a crystal ball, fine. But then what about his health care "savings" estimates? If it's the same crackerjack team of economists, I am worried.

    Oh, and remember, the Congressional Budget Office even says the health care plan is unsustainable.
     
  6. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,414
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Two million? EPIC fail.

    Dick Armey's Freedom Works preregistered 30,000. I've seen estimates run as high as 70,000. But all I've seen (beyond the absurd headline you've linked) in print is "tens of thousands". Are you honestly saying that professional journalists don't know how to differentiate between 50,000 and 2,000,000?

    Try a reality-based existence, Skippy. To put this amount of people into perspective, New York City Gay Pride events routinely attract over 500,000.
     
  7. cruztbone

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Capitola CA USA
    Ericcson all YOUR party ever does is call liberals traitors , pray for our death and act like perfect spoiled children from hell. No good EVER comes from YOUR party, and you have neither history, which you apparently cant read or understand, or economic facts on your side. GOOD ON YOUR PARTY AND YOUR PATHETIC LIES.
     
  8. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    I never called anyone a traitor, or a liar.

    And your ignorance of saying "NO good EVER comes from [my] party" just shows that you have no understanding of how this country works.

    You are a fine example of liberal rhetoric.

    Oh, and continue to name-call and attack me, personally, for posting a news item.

    Next I'll be called a racist for posting it. Who is pathetic?

    I love the way your party operates!
     
    #8 Ericsson1228d, Sep 12, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  9. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,414
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    **Yawn**

    The Drudge Report (where you found the DailyMail headline) links two stories:

    The Washington Post

    The New York Times
    :
    These are the best that Matt Drudge could come up with.

    RealClearPolitics.com quotes a story from MyWay this way:
    Politico's coverage is much the same. I specifically chose those two web-based news services because of their perceived right-of-center POV.

    Reality-based existence is a blast, Skippy. Y'all should try it.


     
  10. bighosenow

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    364
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    chicago
    The National Park Service estimated between 10 and 20 thousand people attended the rally. They usually get pretty close. I was in DC today and there were no major traffic delays. It was about like a Washington Nationals baseball game.
     
  11. bstexas

    bstexas New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    579
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Houston
    REALLY. Unemployment is WORSE of course because the banking system froze up under Bush's watch and everyone freaked. No one spent anything, no one one could gets loans. Please, don't try to pretend that unemployment wouldn't get worse. It HAD to get worse because everyone shut their wallets. The people have 70% of the economy in those wallets. When they stopped buying the industries had to lay off. Duh!

    You are correct about what the Gang of 6 has said about the health savings. But the 4 versions of the bill still need to be cobbled together and tweaked. Hopefully it will save some money. If nothing else, hopefully it will be a little more efficient, will not allow insurance companies to drop people for preexisting ailments and such. Something good will come of it whther you think so or not.
     
  12. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    I'll make a few points this matter. The banking industry went to shit because of bad mortgages. Why? Four reasons.

    1.) Clinton presidency allowed welfare to be counted as income for loan eligibility, and encouraged banks to make these loans. This was an expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (not Clinton's direct fault, but who was Pres in 1977?).

    2.) Banks are GREEDY and this is where the "interest only" loan came from. Bad on Big Banks. They were fucking greedy bastards and everyone knows it.

    3.) Fannie Mae (and the govt) allowed these shitty mortgages to be packaged and sold as commodities, so banks really didn't care who they gave loans to, as they were going to package and sell the shitty ones with the "good ones."

    4.) Stupid people took out mortgages they really couldn't afford. Sure, maybe they were "victims" of predatory lending, but people who can't do simple math shouldn't be buying homes.

    So, BAD on GOVT, BAD on BANKS, BAD on the people who bought homes they couldn't afford.

    Come on, an "interest only loan"?

    So I blame the banking crisis on weaknesses and greed at every level, from banks to govt to the American family.

    Nobody is blameless on that one...
     
  13. Rommette

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Conservatives are so worried about national healthcare but yet they'll be the last ones to get it. So why do republicans care so much?

    I don't have health care because im a full time college student. Should I not be able to health care because you think it'll cost the federal government too much? How much am I worth? Where were the conservatives concerns about spending during the Bush years? Who would Jesus kill?
    Take a look at this thread I started recently:
    http://www.lpsg.org/145950-my-vagina-hurts-im-convinced.html
    Everyone said I needed medical attention but why didn't I go?

    Everyone pays homeowners taxes. Homeowners taxes is what is used to fund neighborhood schools. You don't get that money back if you have grown kids or don't have any kids because in the end everyone benefits from having better schools. Home values go up. The same philosophy is for health insurance. Everyone benefits from having healthier americans.

    My mother died from cancer in her 30's. Lets say she didn't health insurance (even though she did) and when she died she left behind 2 kids (me and my brother). Both of us recieved 800+ a month each in social security. You can spend the money on health care or see it go in social security. Thats the way I see it. That costs even more in the long run. Health insurance isn't $1600 a month
     
  14. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    You know what the funniest part of everything in this is? Not one person in the entire system is really doing their "Job". The dynamic of interaction between liberal and conservative viewpoint is really very simple. Liberals are intended to propose NEW laws which are deviations from the established OLD laws, while Conservatives are intended to review those NEW laws and decide if they conflict with the OLD laws, and then through comparison decide if the NEW law is A) not in conflict with existing law(ideally built upon that whole equality of life and freedom deal) and B) a worthwhile expenditure of resources(is the buck worth the bang). So as liberals are intended to propose alterations(change), conservatives are intended to trim down and focus on efficient expenditures(stability). Through this mechanism, at the current point in time, what the liberal mentality is proposing is health coverage for everyone, because in the liberal viewpoint, this is valuable to the happiness and well-being(the social direction). However, the conservative viewpoint is rejecting it based on certain factors- these primarily being cost based(the economic direction).

    What we aren't following here is protocol; it's not the job of the Democrat to reduce the cost of a plan, it's the job of the Republican. Not bartering and trading of favors in an emulation of petty currency, but through investigation of available resources and technology to attempt to improve the efficiency of the proposal. When it comes to laws, the same relationship applies; Democrats propose laws based on the benefit to the social direction which is then reviewed for cost-effectiveness by Republicans, and Republicans propose laws based on the benefit to the economic direction which is then reviewed for social impact by Democrats.

    The reason for this "not doing their job" is because through the constant in-fighting, the overall perspectives of those interested in becoming politicians has been pushed(in equal opposition) away from the center so far that they no longer can possibly agree without the shameful behavior of exchanging and making deals to pass one law alongside another, even if they are completely irrelevant.

    The representatives are no better. Their job is to represent NOT the majority opinion- that's the senator's job, but rather a representative is intended to act as an intermediate voice between the ENTIRE section of the population which they represent and the governmental operation which the representative participates in. This is the reason the purse strings are in the hands of the House in our government.

    In fact, the only people that seem to have been trying to do their job have been the Presidents- and on average the system has been so defunct from this inter-party conflict that while they try, they are hardly able to achieve.

    The saddest part is that it's everywhere- in Civilians, Consumers, Corporations, Teachers. It's no particular person's fault- nobody has the time, because we're all either busy working at a frenzied pace to occupy ourselves so we get to eat or so the employment numbers look good*, or trying our best to unwind the stress we build from that pace.

    And for the ad absurdum and beyond; the reason we all have to work so hard and long in order to just get by is- (drum-roll please?)- because so many people are working and have to be paid a minimum wage, as well as higher-than-minimum wages because it takes specialization to create the finished products, that it has pushed the costs of products so high that you have to work 400 hours at minimum wage to buy something it took 5 people a total of 30 minutes to make at minimum wage. After you add in the cost of every job on the way between base materials and finished product(gathering materials, transporting raw materials, refining raw materials, transporting refined materials, processing refined materials into parts, assembling parts, transporting the product to a warehouse, managing the warehouse, transporting the products to retail outlets, and managing the retail outlets), the cost of every non-mass produced product is 60% supply deficit versus demand, 30% labor costs, and 10% of actual value based on impact to quality of life. For mass-produced products the cost of labor breaks 90% alone- Basically all of the jobs previously listed- but now also including the machine and the power required to run it and the specialist time to design, build, and repair it.

    Pretty bad, eh? Most of it's because the money's been bulked up and kept, so there's less circulation- in truth, money itself holds no value over the resources, time, and energy required to produce them; this is because money is intended to represent the tangible value of resources versus supply and demand- as new uses are found, there is more demand and higher costs unless supply catches up, so inflation from supply deficit correlates with population demand, which correlates with technological development of new uses for resources(eg, plastics from oil) as well as available budget trends.

    *of course, no idiot in the peanut gallery- that is the pundits; whose job is to point out REALLY bad decisions to prevent them from happening again through sheer embarrassment- realizes that if we really WERE developing as an economic AND social power, LESS people would have to work as technology improves, and not the other way around.
     
    #14 AllHazzardi, Sep 12, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  15. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    As convenient as your analogy may seem, it isn't valid. You see, many people have a problem with this health care bill of Obama's because they are in a situation where their employers pay for health care, and it is considered a "benefit" as part of their employment package. Where people find it a bit unnerving is that now the Government wants to say "hey big business, we will take care of that 'benefit' and then the government says to the employee - 'hey your taxes are going up for health care that isn't as good as what you had before." While Obama claims "ya'll can keep your health insurance through your employer," the plan will likely disincentivize businesses from providing the benefit and many will eventually default to the government plan of a single payer system, which Obama has been videotaped saying is his goal (to 'phase out' private health insurance' in favor of a 'single payer' system.

    Call it greed, call me a bastard, but I worked hard to earn my benefits and I don't care to default to a government run plan and see my taxes increase. If you had a good insurance benefit through your job, you would probably realize where I am coming from. It's nice to be altruistic, and I agree that those with no insurance should be given the option to PURCHASE a government option, but leave those of us who have it alone. And I know Obama promises this, but as the plan is set up now, almost no employer (greedy) would provide private health insurance anymore.
     
    #15 Ericsson1228d, Sep 12, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  16. Rommette

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Buisinesses (well, atleast larger ones) will still be required to give health insurance. Nobody's forcing anybody to be in this health insurance. That's why its called OPTIONAL. You will still be benefiting from your employer based health care. You just said your employer health care wil be better than the government ran insurance. Get what i'm saying.

    Im sure you don't like the fact that uninsured like myself would get healthcare but what about people who get more from social security than they put in? Me and my brother recieved $115200 combined over the course of 6 years (1600x 12x6) and my brother who is still underaged (5 yrs younger than me) would have recieved an additional $48000 on his own until he's 18. Of course my mother didn't put that much money into social security. Do you have a problem with us using your hard earned money to stay affloat? How do you feel about people on welfare? I get food stamps? Are you mad?

    I've always said republicans are selfish (except for a few). Republicans HATE spending. It seems as though you feel that since you had to do much more to get health insurance you don't want other to get a better deal on it. Like I said...if youre not going to OPT INTO this plan then why stop others who cant afford the "LUXURY" of having health care?


    Great post Allhazzardi!
     
    #16 Rommette, Sep 12, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  17. Trinity

    Trinity New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    YouTube - MSNBC: Aerial Views Show a Massive Crowd Gathering for "9/12 March on Washington DC"

    By MSNBC's own coverage...the crowd appears much bigger than tens of thousands. The aerial shot and massive view of the crowd is definitely a "strong showing." Each person can decide for themselves.
     
  18. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Is it too late (or ironic) to say that the "Million Man March", hosted by Louis Farrakhan, attracted more people than this so-called rally?
     
  19. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    Hey, I have a question- If your benefits are no longer paid to you by your employer, wouldn't that reduce your taxable income by the value of the insurance package? So your taxes go down because your taxable income went down, and your taxes go up to pay for the publicly available health-care, and you end up basically where you started on the cash income-to-tax ratio.

    Personally I agree- I believe in grandfathering very strongly; If any contract is revised by any company, it should effectively only apply to new customers unless the old customers lapse their service(cancel it and start a new contract becoming "new customers"). In the same sense, I don't think any change made by government should be allowed to impact on a person's ability to make choices on something like insurance.

    Besides, I think it's a smarter idea to reduce the sub-costs of health-care(energy, man-hours, supplies, land, court settlements, etc) before trying to make it available to everyone. Which in an astounding way is a total reversal on the normal pattern of the more efficient option being more expensive up front- in this case, it'd likely be far far less expensive up front as well as less expensive over time. It'd make the public option less expensive as well as the private option- unless those insurance companies just rip everyone off.
     
  20. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    NO, because health benefits (for now) are not considered taxable income. The employer doesn't pay me for my health insurance, they pay the insurance company.

    But it is an interesting point - Obama wants to start taxing our health benefits, so he again dis-incentivizes private health insurance.

    And I agree wholeheartedly with making the system more efficient, or even a pilot-scale study to see the feasibility. Maybe Washington DC can be the guinea pig?
     
    #20 Ericsson1228d, Sep 13, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2009