The march to fascism continues....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SCsoccerMom, May 6, 2009.

  1. SCsoccerMom

    SCsoccerMom New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    SC
    For those who think this will be an Obama-bashing diatribe take a deep breath....as I try to convey always....it has never been about the Democrats are bad Republicans are good nonsense. I think both sides at their respective cores are dragging us away from liberty and into some form of "nice" americanized totalitarianism. Bush and the Patriot Act is the target of today....read this article about this 16yo kid from NC.....it is maddening and instructive. When we give governments power....don't be surprised when it is used to abuse us....republican democrat whomever. That is why our Founders set up the system they did...to protect us from too much government power and the abuses that will inevitably follow. Hopefully we can all agree ...right and left... that we need to protect ourselves from the terrorism that comes when constitutional powers and protections are ceeded to individuals or branches of government never intended.
    Free Ashton Lundeby! by William Norman Grigg
     
  2. crossy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arizona
    Please study the following! FEDERALIST PAPERS
    It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it. To those who have been led by experience to attend to this consideration, it could not appear surprising, that the act of the convention, which recommends so many important changes and innovations, which may be viewed in so many lights and relations, and which touches the springs of so many passions and interests, should find or excite dispositions unfriendly, both on one side and on the other, to a fair discussion and accurate judgment of its merits. In some, it has been too evident from their own publications, that they have scanned the proposed Constitution, not only with a predisposition to censure, but with a predetermination to condemn; as the language held by others betrays an opposite predetermination or bias, which must render their opinions also of little moment in the question. In placing, however, these different characters on a level, with respect to the weight of their opinions, I wish not to insinuate that there may not be a material difference in the purity of their intentions. It is but just to remark in favor of the latter description, that as our situation is universally admitted to be peculiarly critical, and to require indispensably that something should be done for our relief, the predetermined patron of what has been actually done may have taken his bias from the weight of these considerations, as well as from considerations of a sinister nature. The predetermined adversary, on the other hand, can have been governed by no venial motive whatever. The intentions of the first may be upright, as they may on the contrary be culpable. The views of the last cannot be upright, and must be culpable. But the truth is, that these papers are not addressed to persons falling under either of these characters. They solicit the attention of those only, who add to a sincere zeal for the happiness of their country, a temper favorable to a just estimate of the means of promoting it.
     
  3. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    at least i agree on the point ''if you give them the power don't be surprised when they use it'' and it really did not start with the patriot act this has been building for long time
     
  4. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    This is why I chose Russ Feingold as my selection for president a couple years ago.

    He was the only member of Congress in the fall of 2001 with the sense to set aside all the reactionary emotional bullshit and call out the USA PATRIOT Act for the unconstitutional and decidedly unpatriotic piece of shit that it was.
     
  5. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    879
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    not sure what your solution is...

    We have had 30 years of Reagan mentality that government is 'bad'.
    Yet the founders very clearly left us WITH a federal government and they very clearly spelled out that the government is required to provide for the common good, the common defense, and regulate commerce.

    While I am not happy with the number of Bush era power grabs that Obama has NOT repudiated... I can not help but think that the democratic agenda of a more responsive and repsonsible government is a vast improvement.

    At least the democrats believe it is possible for government to be a force for good... because we have no hope at all of good governance when we elect people who believe it can not possibly be good.

    This does not mean we don't have to watch them like a hawk...

    ANYONE getting into power will have the temptation to abuse it.
    The best thing we can do is eschew specific party affiliation, think of ourselves as ALL being independant, and be perfectly willing to vote ANYONE out of office based purely on performance.

    If conservatives voted on performance, then they would not elect republicans. Republicans have proven over and over that they are not fiscally responsible, do not promote smaller govenrment, and only act as facilitators for the rich to soak more money from the taxpayer.

    Today... the democrats have the more cohesive plan and a better understanding of what services the government MUST provide. Infrastructre- managing the economy and regulating commerce.

    Today, they democrats understand that our health care system is a profit mongering shambles.. little more that a method for the rich to suck every last asset out of the pockets of the middle class before they can die and leave anything to their children.

    Taking out the middle men who do nothing but deny care and add a layer of fat profit would actually lower the cost of care for everyone.

    Those who believe that free market capitalism cures all ills are simply ignorant, lacking any comprehension that capitalism can not work without growing markets.
    And in a world where birthrates are declining in the west, and we are unable to export to the protected markets of the east... when our corporations think only of the next quarterly report, and their golden parachutes and utterly fail to plan for a future economic base...
    Then pure capitalism fails.

    The world is changing. What worked in 1940 is not going to work the same today.
    We have the tools to discern a fact based, testable theory of government and economics.
    We can abandon religious beliefs like the invisible hand, and KNOW that, under these circumstances, with the US no longer the fastest growing economy in the world...
    And unlikely to ever be again... know that we need to change how we think to fit the evolving situation.

    The govenrment has a role to play in that.
    They are supposed to be the only team that's not playing for profit.
    They are supposed to represent only the pure interests of society as a whole...
    NOT the corporations, whose existence we only suffer because they provide employment.

    Stop believing in jingoistic dogma.
    demand evidence in PROOF...

    I don't give a fuck about anyone's moral outrage or 'values'......
    The only position we need on teen sex education is the one that PROVES its merit thru lowering actual numbers of teen pregnancies and STD infections.

    And the position we need on commerce is the one that proves to result in the least graft and fraud.

    We can not always tell if a new policy will work...
    But we can damn well vote AGAINST policies that had a 15 year run and failed spectacularly.
     
  6. SCsoccerMom

    SCsoccerMom New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    SC
    Phil Ayseho>>The point of this post was giving too much power to gov't at any level is a dangerous thing....and clearly not intended by the Constitution....your overall point seems to be...dem's good rep's bad....which misses my point...neither are good when placed in a system where there is no control.....Reagan did not believe gov't was bad....just that is was way too big and way too powerful. He was right then and even more right now.
    You are right the Constitution does create a Federal gov't....but from there your logic leaps too far...you seem to assume that whatever the fed gov't does is good and since the dem's believe in big gov't they will be better at running it.
    No.....the consitution had a very specific list of powers and duties of the fed gov't EVERYTHING else was reserved to the States or to the Poeple. I would guess that probably 75% of things the Fed gov't does is not within the Consitutional realm of delegated powers and should be left to the States...along with the taxing authority to carry out those duties. And no insuring the "common good" was not one of the delegated duties under the Consitution. That is one of those broad gage terms that some like to use that can justify anything....marshal law to insure the common good? Sure! That works! The preamble speaks about "promoting the general welfare"....but that was the preamble not the delegation of powers clause(s).
    Can the gov't at any level do good things...yes but only as a creature of US as a society and within defined rules and with certain limited powers that we grant it. "The government" is not some freestanding living entity that was immaculently conceived and has now grown to serve us and provide for our well being out of its love for us. But I am afraid many people see it in those type of deified type terms. Instead it is a tool created by us the people do very limited things...and we can constrict it when we see fit if it grows too large and infringes on our liberty.
     
  7. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,285
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,150
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    I'd prefer to live under the "European Socialist" model.
     
  8. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Soccermom is correct, the gov't is increasing its role in far too many areas.

    Now please, Soccermom, please put up some more pictures like the avatar.

    Please. Pretty please.
     
  9. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm not sure that the phrase "smaller government" is anything more than a marketing slogan.


    Is "smaller government" even possible in a country with a 306+ million population?

    Both liberals and conservatives are into power. Power is only possible with a centralized (growing) government.

    I see conservatives wishing federal laws to trump state's laws every bit as I see it from liberals. Both parties want power. I listen to Rush and Sean Hannity and Michael Medved on the radio and I'm convinced they want POWER and control again, instead of a return to stronger states rights.


    In a way, it's like, we can no longer go backwards. A smaller government sounds as utopian as living in a massive capitalistic society that no longer produces huge financial institutions which are "too big to fail". We've developed a system of greed, and unless you counter this capitalistic greed with some socialistic measures (taxpayer-funded college, healthcare, social security), then the working middle class will continue to get stiffed by the greedy international corporations.

    This is not an America in the 1940's anymore. We are controlled every bit as much by multi-national corporations as by "big government" (in fact, lobbyists for the "too big to fail" corporations simply buy out the politicians, who always have a price). Lobbyist "purchasing" politicians, governmental legislation, is another aspect of capitalism gone awry. Everything becomes for sale.

    An age of huge multi-national-corporate capitalism needs a little healthy socialism (nationalized oil industry, nationalized banking perhaps) to give back to the taxpayers and stop the 5% of the population that owns over 80% of the country's wealth from taking more.
     
    #9 D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, May 6, 2009
    Last edited: May 6, 2009
  10. powerthroat

    powerthroat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    Phil, I have a few arguments to throw at you, in no particular order:

    -regarding pure capitalism, there has never been pure capitalism. The united states (before they became the United States) came closest to pure capitalism but even then, there was some government intervention. Since pure capitalism has not yet actually been tried, it remains theoretical and cannot be dismissed as a failure. The US is a socialist/capitalist hybrid, as is Canada and the European countries. The difference is that they all vary in how much is left to the market and how much is either directed by or directly provided by government. Economists continually observe that countries with freer markets do better. They have lower crime and unemployment, wealth and resources are more evenly distributed (big middle class), lower infant mortality rate, greater income mobility, generally a happier and healthier societies. It's like a sliding scale...the more resources and wealth are centrally provided, the less the society, as a whole, benefits. The more resources and wealth are left to independent entities (the market), the more society, as a whole, benefits. There are some very bizarre, divergent economists, like Paul Krugman, who is the darling of unions and other "we want our share of government welfare too" groups, who favor socialist or Keynesian economics, but the vast majority of economists favor free markets because the evidence that they, by profession, observe and analyse, continually shows that controlled economies just don't achieve the desired results and mixed economies have a tendency to gradually become more controlled over time.

    Note that "work better" is not the same thing as perfect or "cures all ills". This is a strawman from the Left. Aside from the Randists, who have some bizarre, "moral" philosophy about capitalism, most of us who favor free markets do so simply because, when compared to the alternatives, free markets continually show better results and have fewer and more easily solvable problems. Fewer and more easily solveable does NOT mean zero or easy.

    What we are witnessing that is destroying everything is corporatism, which is not capitalism and did not arise from it. To put it plainly, if liberals are afraid of Big Business and conservatives are afraid of Big Government, then both should be afraid because corporatism is essentially Big Business and Big Government fused together. The major turning point in the US was the lobbying for and achieving, incorporation licensing. The lobbying comes from the private sector but the actual granting of incorporation entitlement is granted by the government...not the market. Incorporation, loosely translated, means that the business, which is a non-living operation, will be recognized by the Federal Government as a legal person, separate from its owner, and held responsible for the decisions that the owner will make. There are different types of incorporation, all with their own fun packages of entitlement that allow them to screw not only the customers, but any small businesses trying to compete, because they are no longer personally accountable for the damages their incorporated businesses may incur.

    So give that a century or more to grow and develop, like a tumor...and you have what we have today: enormous, multi-national corporations that really cannot be regulated partially because they can use their money and resources to fuse their interests into governments all over the globe...ala WTO...AND because whatever tightened down regs the US government throws on factories will not apply to the factories in other countries, owned by businesses who will then sell the product to the US, for far cheaper than the domestic made ones, because the lack of regulation in the other country made the production cost cheaper.

    Get that?

    BECAUSE businesses are now multinational and the operators are safely removed from accountability for the directions they take their businesses, and BECAUSE they have their fingers in governments themselves, the method of regulation not only does not work and hasn't, but it even strengthens the corporate power structure by crushing small business competition.

    Next:

    You made a bunch of statements about the role of government and what they are supposed to be. Well, that's just it. Everyone has their own ideas about what a government is supposed to be and yet, the reality is that government is an institution of centralized power and authority...and so it naturally attracts those who seek power and authority. It doesn't matter what it's supposed to be. What matters is the pattern of what is and what does happen. And the pattern is that the more power and authority a government has, the more oppressive it becomes and that authority can be partially granted by the people themselves by asking the government to shut down market functions and provide a service in replacement. If that service is poorly constructed and executed and more people do without than with...what is anyone going to do about it? In the market, a competing business can check the ethics of another. But in government, the money is forced through taxes and then spent by authorized people and if that money is wasted, then it's wasted and there's nothing we can do about it.

    This is why your statement about needing to watch them like a hawk holds no water. When the government gets this powerful, we can't watch them like a hawk because they now control what we see and hear (media) and even if we catch some corruption, there ain't a damned thing we can do about it!!

    Case in point: The Bush Administration did many things that render it guilty of treason and many of the men in that administration should be tried and publicly executed. Had we, the people, the power to vote on something like that, it might have happened.

    But no. They just resigned and will still get government pensions on top of their hefty profits. What you are witnessing there has nothing to do with free markets. It is the fusion of Big Business and Big Government and it was born from Big Government. In the past, this is how religion got big too...the power of the state.

    It's like this: the more you ask a centralized institution to provide for you, the bigger and more powerful it gets, the more dependent you become upon it and cannot prevent it from abusing you and controlling your entire life. Those who succumb to authoritarian mindset will eventually find their way into the ranks of such institutions and once there, they will eventually rationalize how to totally enslave the ones they were supposed to be protecting and providing for.

    So yeah, watch those politicians like a hawk and then...? What you gonna do about it? Cheney got off the hook. Even does interviews to shoot off his opinion of Obama on CNN.

    The liberal, progressive, Democrat view continually asserts that neither people, nor businesses, can be trusted to operate on their own so all kinds of things are regulated or licensed or or simply provided outright by the government, and, furthermore, that IF you get good people in government, all will work out well. Unfortunately, that view seriously overlooks how big the IF is. With government naturally attracting those who feel they are "leaders" and therefore want to be in positions of authority and control, we may find our choices to be the tamest of the wolves, rather than a genuine artifact of fairness and compassion.

    If anyone is wondering, I would consider my views anti-nationalist/mini-societalist. I tend to agree more with libertarians and paleoconservatives, since they understand economy, order by principle and pragmatic thinking better than neocon/fascists, progressives, liberals and socialist, who are all concerned with idealizing and using the power of the state to direct cultural changes and who tend to view society as a whole as being of greater value than the individuals within it.
     
  11. powerthroat

    powerthroat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    One other thing, regarding the whole "healthcare in shambles" debate.

    It's very simple: the medical industry is being strangled to death by the insurance industry. Insurance policies complicate even the most ordinary medical visits and procedures. Because physicians must have malpractice insurance by law, insurance companies can charge them up the wazzoo in premiums (that on top of the massive student loans they have to pay off and then their ordinary bills). It is like this in EVERY AREA of insurance. Where insurance is mandated, the companies feed like hungry sharks on those who must have it.

    Well, doctors gotta make a living too so they pass the cost on to their patients. This is not greed but basic business sense. If your profits don't meet your costs, your business goes into debt and will eventually croak. This is why they chose a profession, instead of working for someone else...to earn their own way independently, but with that, comes the higher risk of failure.

    Oh and occasionally I hear about "those rich doctors". Ahem. Most of those are the specialists who specialize in things only the rich can afford...plastic surgery and the like.

    So the healthcare problem can easily be solved not by universal healthcare, which, if implemented at the federal level, will almost certainly end up in disaster, but to simply kick the insurance industry out of the medical industry. Actually, we will all be better off when we realize that insurance in general is only suspicious at best and grossly fraudulent at worst, but I don't expect people to figure that out any time soon.

    Regarding universal healthcare: I don't think it's fair for healthy taxpayers to have to pay for the lung cancer and emphazema treatments of someone who made a choice to smoke cigarettes for 40 years but who is now too poor to afford to pay for it himself. How many people are suffereing from ailments brought on by nothing more than stupid and neglectful choices regarding their health? All those people will be storming the hospitals and overworking the doctors (which can lead to doctor shortages...NOT GOOD!)

    I've looked at the healthcare systems of the countries that progressives hold up in triumph: Canada, England and France. Canada's healthcare system generally works out well if you're healthy. For major, life saving surgeries and treatments, they either have an average of 17 and half waiting list, during which they could die, or fly over to the US and have it done sooner. Same with many othe countries. Those who can afford it come to the US for the really necessary, life saving procedures. Those who don't must either wait and to get substandard medical care or die while waiting for it. England is the same way.

    France is doing well with their system...for now. But then France is where people only work 6 hours a day and have full four week vacations. While the utopian might sigh wistfully over such wonder, the economically minded person will note that France is not able to afford this style of economy and has been using their own government as a no limit credit card for some time now. Result: major deficit and, if they don't tidy up the loose ends, their economy will collapse and I doubt if their healthcare will remain at the top.

    In a nutshell: the only problem with the US's healthcare system is the cost and the costs are high because of the insurance industry's stranglehold on the medical industry. All you have to do is get the insurance industry's greedy fingers out of that pie.

    If one is going to try for the pseudo-solution of universal healthcare, it should, at least, be implemented on a state by state level, rather than by the damn Feds, who make too much of a mess out of everything they touch. It would be more manageable and achieve better results that way.
     
  12. powerthroat

    powerthroat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    That was "17 and a half WEEK waiting list".
     
  13. powerthroat

    powerthroat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    Hazelrod, are you sure Russ Feingold was the only person to object to the Patriot Act? I know that Ron Paul objected strongly to it and voted against it (another one of many reasons I voted for him).
     
  14. SCsoccerMom

    SCsoccerMom New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    SC
    Indutrialsize.....I disagree with your opinion that a Europeon Socialist model would be good for our country but I do THANK YOU for being honest about what you want and think. That is problem number one with both the rdems and reps.....they both talk in platitudes and never say what they mean and plan to do.
    As to Fiengold.....he did vote against the Patriot Act.....I supported it at the time...now I can see its misuse for purposes never intended and believe it needs to be repealed or limited to who can apply it or how it can be employed. Using it as a sledgehammer to kill a fly as appears to be the case here is clearly an abuse of state power.
    However Fiengold did author the McCain Fiengold Act which clearly violates the First Amendment....so his Consitutional prowess seems to have a blind spot when it comes to making sure incumbants are re elected and no one can say a bad word about the professional ruling class.
    And no I am not a Ron Paul voter....though I like some of his ideas.
    And finally STARinvestor.....i am afriad that in the socialist utopia in which we now live I must pass your request by the state board of avatar approval and seek a license and state approval to post more than one picture per year. Gosh I hate it...but blame Obama. :>)
     
  15. t1ctac

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    203
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    68
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas (TX, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Oh wow, so much I disagree with in this post. I try to avoid the politics on this site because...well I disagree with most of what is being said in the threads.

    Big government, that was the fear of Reagan's time, and we have only gotten bigger since then. The powers framed by the founders were very limited and enumerated, we have long since moved away from that. I was actually having a very interesting conversation earlier today about Wickard v. Filburn and its effect on "regulating" commerce.

    I'm lol'ing pretty hard here.

    If you really and truly believe that either of the 2 parties are looking out for you, or will be more responsible, enforce and uphold liberties, or will show responsible spending habits, you sir, are
    naïve. They have spun a fine web of rhetoric, and you actually believed it. Part of the problem is we are only looking at a 2 party system, if you are not in those 2 parties you are not competitive, no matter how valid your plans in office are, and if you are in the party you must toe the party line or they won't back you in the next election.

    Republicans are not conservative, and have not been for a long time, don't get into your head anything of that sort. There are a lot of rich Democrats out there as well, talking an awful lot about "redistribution" of "wealth," and none of them seem to be too happy about giving up their own. Meanwhile, both Repubs and Dems in Congress choose their own salary, so I recommend not judging how they will help you.

    I'm lol'ing pretty hard here. We are in the middle of a MASSIVE spending spree, but fear not. Our government will be responsible and cut a cool 100 million dollars out of the budget. As for commerce, see reference to Wickard from earlier.

    When was the last time we even had a free market? Government tariffs, government subsidies, they've been slicing off a piece anywhere they could, outlawed anything they couldn't make a profit on, outlawed anything too productive that endangered their investments in other fields (paper v. hemp off the top of my head). Our government has long taken a look at things that are suddenly too productive, and tried to "stimulate" the other areas competing with that, that is not a free market. We have companies going out of business left and right, and then getting bailouts from the government, that is not capitalism. If they really cared about only the bottom line then they would be much more efficient in design and operation, along with NOT having the golden parachute. That is wasted money that is taking away from the bottom line. They are just greedy, and are cutting costs and quality to maximise profits only to line the coffers.

    Our government has proven over and over that it DOES NOT know what the hell it is doing. We have tried to set the government to do everything from watching what goes on in radio and TV, regulating the food and drug economies, trying to control the environment, keeping tabs on the status of our education system, and it has done all of these tasks in both the least efficient, and also the most unresearched and damaging methods.

    Maybe they should be looking out for a profit. How long have we been operating under the "I can make $5 and spend $6" mentality? Our government has been overspending to an insane degree for decades, and the solution to "managing the economy" is to add more crap? Spend more money? How I say, it has not worked and the solution will not be gotten with the same thinking that caused the problem.

    The government doesn't need to even have a position on that. The government should not be trying to rule anything on morals, I believe differently than you on a great many things, I can almost guarantee that. My personal beliefs should not take precedence over yours though. Whether or not you personally are for or against gay marriage, or abortion, or sex changes, or teen pregnancies, or narcotic use, all of that is DEFINITELY outside of Federal jurisdiction. At most it should be a state by state decision, the way a federation is set up, and what the people have to say should mean something. Campaign promises have been a sham for a very long time, and we have done nothing to stop them from going back on their word, which they have been doing for a very long time.

    Then why haven't we?
     
  16. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    I loathe the insurance industry as much as the next guy and more than most, but without insurance or a government program, who the hell's gonna pay for health care?

    I live with several chronic conditions which exclude me from buying my own health insurance at any price:
    1) I've been HIV+ since 1983;
    2) I have terrible GI issues, including ulcers that medication barely contains;
    3) I have congenital degenerative disc disease (arthritis) in my cervical spine (neck) that I inherited from my paternal grandmother, which causes everything from excruciating near-daily pain to migraine.

    All three conditions have impacted my ability to work in the career I spent over twenty years developing. The result has been a series of low-paying jobs over the last seven years that have essentially bankrupted me.

    To give you just a clue as to the kind of costs we're speaking of just to maintain me in a semi-healthy and -productive state, here are some hard numbers:

    1) My antiretroviral medications cost over $1500 per month. The other medications I take to control the ulcers and chronic pain run an extra $700 per month;
    2) The labs I take every 3-4 months to monitor how the meds are doing are $3200 a whack;
    3) I've been hospitalized four times in the last 18 months. The cost of these stays when added together exceeds $125,000.

    Without institutional intervention (whether private insurance or public assistance), I'd have died years ago. You might think that such are the breaks for having lived a life that you might find personally offensive, I beg to differ. My life has meaning and purpose to me and to those who love me. And who knows? I might yet write the Great American Novel of my generation (I certainly have the outline in place and about 50,000 words committed so far to the effort. What I can say is that I make a meaningful and insightful impact on hundreds if not thousands of people who find the wisdom I've attained through the work that I've published so far.

    I find the ease with which you find the lives of fellow imperfect human beings expendable deeply chilling, if not just a tad fascistic (to relate it all back to the OP).

    Six hour workdays? For everybody? You got a link for that?

    I lived in France for many years and didn't know a soul who put in less than 8-12 hour days. Things couldn't have changed so drastically since 1992 when I returned home to Boston.
     
  17. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Thank you...I spoke incorrectly. Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the Act in 2001. There were 66 House reps who also voted against the Act in their chamber, including Paul.
     
  18. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    879
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Sorry, but events have proven the Reagan and reaganomics was and is dead wrong.
    Haven't you read the papers lately?
    Yeah, big problem with the idea of Government so weak it can not regulate the financial markets...

    So you rteveal yourself to be a typical reaganite Govenrment =bad believer...

    But let's hear your evidence, let's hear your argument to explain how government NOT upgrading the levees in New Orleans tuirned out well... About how government NOT being able to fund infrastructure maintenance to the point of bridges collapsing in the middle of rush hour is a positive result of Reaganesque 'small' government.

    SAYING 'government that is too big is dangerous' is meaningless. You have to DEFINE what constitutes Too Big... something you neglected to do, because it would have let slip that your believe in the bankrupt and failed theories of unregulated free markets and government not meddling in the rampant larceny that occurs in big business.

    Well, we have HAD a 20 year long rise in Republican agenda and re[publican ideas on smaller government... we have had an 8 year period of republican rule in congress and an 8 year rule of republican rule in the white house, and seen a republican free-for-all of de-regulation and and tax cuts...

    And what do we have to show for it?
    Some pretty damn wealthy criminals we can't even prosecute because what they did was legalized by republicans.
    And everything else in the shitter.
    Electrical grid failing... why? because privatized free market energy corporations were NOT force by the government to upgrade and maintain their grid. Nah- they took all the profits out in fat bonuses and golden parachutes.



    Its pretty hard argument to make that government should be able to allow zipless Christian sexophobes to define sex education in our schools, but that they should not police the people who are playing around with billions of dollars in pension funds....

    Like everybody else with your opinion, you have no clue what your government does provide that you could not live without, and could not afford to pay some private corporation a profit to do for you.
    Like everyone else you will whine for your social security check when you are old enough and demand medicare, because no private insurer will touch you when to get to the age where you will likely need care.

    And you will defend the right of bently driving investment fucks to suck a profit out of your cancer treatment because you have been sold a line of bullshit about how the government could not handle the task of medical care... never mind that they do so for most people over 65... never mind that they manage to handle your mail far cheaper than any private shipper, never mind that they manage to deliver purified water to your tap at one thousandth the cost of bottle water...

    Oh, and never mind that we trust our government to manage the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, warships, fighter planes, submarines and sundry other sophisticated weaponry... and to do so far cheaper than private mercenaries like blackwater...

    yeah, sure, there is no way we could trust them to dispense birth control pills and anti-depressants... that's WAY more complicated that the running medicare and the military....

    10 years ago you might have been able to make an argument... but not in today's world.
    In today's world we have SEEN, just like the last time commerce went unregulated ( the roaring 20s ending in depression) that the idea just does not work. Not merely a failure... but a spectacualrly destructive failure.

    The post mortem is over... the whole thing can be traced to a couple dozen republican sponsored bills that incrementally de-regulated commerce over 20 years.

    You can't say what size government ought to be... but the evidence is clear...
    It needs to be at least a LITTLE bigger than the republicans from Reagan thru Bush left it.
     
  19. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    879
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    PS- read some history.
    The actions of the Bush administration perfectly follow the development of a fascist state. A state where corporate interests rule. Where freedoms are abridged, and where dissent is punished.

    Your thinly veiled reagan republicanism is evident, and you should realize that it is out of vogue.
     
  20. B_4inches

    B_4inches New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2005
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    South east Idaho
    My problem Phil is that I don't for one fuzzy moment believe that Soccermom, Star, Trinity et all ad nauseum believe one word they say. Because it is painfully clear by now that Republicans don't really want a smaller goverment. They just use that argument as a crutch to segue into disengenuously trumpeting the rights of states which is all a ruse to keep certain issues out of federal hands because they have no real desire to do anything about them. Things like how schools should be handled for one, not an issue Republicans care about so they make up this Big Goverent Boogieman in order to keep certain topics away from the Fderal goverment so they wont have to deal with it when they are in power.

    I've had very little interest in getting involved in all these political discussions on this site because it is utterly futile to do so as long as the real reasons Republicans are doing certain things are never discussed. It isn't ignorance or fear. If they tell a lie its because they don't want us to know thier real reason.

    For instance, what really is thier real problem with Socialism? Why do they try to make it seem evil? It's ridiculous right so why do it? There has to be a lot of sentiments where all this stuff comes from. So what is the genesis of thier real beliefs? They want a goverment at least as big as what a Demorcrat wants they just want it to do differnt things. Okay ask yourselfs what things and why those things? Why do poor and middle class Republicans consistantly vots agaisnt thier own self interest?

    And remember one thing. You all keep talking about ignorance and fear. Beleive me, there is only one real fear you're all playing against when talking to these guys. Thier fear of being wrong.


    P.S. Phil The tone of your posts has really impressed me. Its exactly how I feel and if I didn't see all this as mostly pointless I'd be just as angry at these 3 hucksters as you are. As it is I can only feel sorry for them.
     
    #20 B_4inches, May 7, 2009
    Last edited: May 7, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted