Democrats & Liberals Archives

Job-Killing Tax Cuts and Deregulation.

I have a sad announcement to make. This blog entry is going to kill jobs. Now doesn’t that sound bad? Of course it does. It’s meant to sound bad. The Republicans have not only said that the Affordable Care Act is a job-killing bill, they’ve taken the opportunity to name their bill the “Repealing The Job Killing Health Care Law Act”. Now, jobs in the Healthcare industry have actually gone up by 200,000. According to one report, they could actually go down by about 250-450 thousand over the next ten years if the Republicans have their way. Well, that would be embarrassing, wouldn’t it be?

If we're going to irresponsibly throw out the term "job-killing", why don't we put out the tax cuts as an example. Nobody should take the following argument seriously, at least in terms of claiming jobs were actually killed, but let's show the right how this argument could really work.

Bush created a total of 3 million jobs or so in office, most of which under his regime of tax cuts. Clinton, on the other hand, created 23 million. So, we have a deficit of job creation between the two of them. There is a demonstrable shortfall on Bush's part. Unlike with the Healthcare bill, where we can say millions have gained employment since the bill's passage, the period since Bush's tax cuts were signed into law have been atrocious for jobs.

So, we can go and say, "The Bush tax cuts killed twenty million jobs!" and we'd be far closer to being right than the Republicans would be for saying the Affordable Care Act was a job-killer.

We could at least say, though, that the job-creating properties of the Bush Tax cuts was very, very overrated. the Bush years, the years of the Bush Tax cuts, even allowing for the recession, were the worst times for job creation since WWII. Given how shallow Bush's recessions were, there's no macroeconomic justification for that slow rate of job growth.

But hey, should we be employing deceptive arguments like "The Bush Tax Cuts killed twenty million jobs" to counter their policies? No. It's simplistic and misleading.

No, no, I think if we're going to be honest about our harsh rhetoric, let's talk about Job-killing banking regulations, job-killing failures to regulate the trade in derivatives, job-killing policies on deepwater oil drilling, job-killing policies on the housing markets.

Ah, but those are their policies! (Not that you'll get them to admit to it.) Well, then, it was all a big accident, and we shouldn't do anything to prevent it all from happening again.

We lost a total of eight million jobs, thanks to that severe recession, a recession caused in part by the compounded problems of a energy economy gone awry (job-killing energy policy?) and a housing economy gone to bust, and finally accelerated by the crash of the big banks caused by Lehman Brother's bankruptcy. Can we talk about job-killing small government policies, then, job-killing irrational opposition to bailouts, and then bailouts that had any strings attached?

Yes, let's say it like it is here, folks: the folks on the right tried to beg off on bailing somebody else out. They tried taking a small government approach, and just letting the banks fail.

The problem is, the job-killing derivatives policy made it possible for the banks to so entangle each other in mutual relationships, that the derivatives contracts became the economic equivalent of a suicide pact. The collapse of various markets showed that this wasn't simply the banks trying to con everybody, they really were in trouble.

We can debate the merits of TARP, for sure, that it was created with too few strings attached, and no requirement that the funds be used to continue lending, which is the point of keeping the banks alive.

But when the rhetoric becomes simply about dramatizing things, and less about illuminating them, it gets in the way of good policy. Sure it was the populist thing to do to oppose the bailout. And most Republicans did on the first vote, along with many Democrats.

But rhetoric is not reality, and the reality is, the banks screwed up in a way that posed a systemic risk, and swallowing our bile to prevent that risk from coming fully to pass was the only responsible thing to do.

The question, in the aftermath, is how do we avoid these kinds of job-killing collapses. The Republican response so far is nice little stunts like calling for repeal of even more regulation. I mean, we've been repealing regulations and legislation in that fashion, towards that end, for the last few decades, reaching a fever pitch under the Republicans during the Bush Administration. That has been the policy for as long as I can remember.

The taxpayers have had to pay for it several times within my lifetime, as have those who lost their jobs in the various crashes, the various busts. We've done it because such a cure, with its systemic risks, would be worse than the disease. Sometimes, in fact most of the time, markets don't behave in a linear fashion. Things can compound themselves, get out of control. they don't mostly, because the different impulses tend to moderate each other. But sometimes they trainwreck together, and things go out of control.

The Republicans don't want to admit that sometimes people move intelligently together, and sometimes they just panic, oblivious to what the accumulated effect of their actions are. Republicans want us to just regulate for the easy times, for how things typically operate. This, though, I feel, is pretty much like putting the armor where the bullet holes are.

The real question for us, on regulations, is where the bullet holes are when the plane doesn't come back. What are the failures we can't trust the economy to bounce back from, and how do we prevent them? The job-killing capacity of regulations, in my opinion, are way overrated. The job-killing capacity of the various deregulated behaviors, from convoluted accounting schemes, to consolidations of banks, to participation of financial institutions in multiple, conflicting roles within the market, has been demonstrated amply.

The question, then, is when we stop the job-killing coddling of the financial sector. Expect Republicans to do nothing until it's too late. That is, if rank and file Republicans fail to press their leaders for rules of the road to keep the industry in line.

It's not in your interest to continue to let Wall Street do what it wants. Will it take a complete economic collapse for you, the reader, to decide the risks are too great? Let's hope not.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at January 18, 2011 2:26 PM
Comments
Comment #317435

Stephen,
Are you aware that you can call the Health Care Reform Act job killing if you think about how many jobs are going to be lost because as health and medical care cost increase less and less Americans will seek out Western Medicine. In fact, by preventing illness through improving a persons health you take away the need for health care insurance companies to hire those people to find loopholes so the company doesn’t have to pay the bill in the first place.

Yes once Americans realize that just like everything else the we will need to see a 400% jump in premiums in order for the Health and Medical Industry to keep the same profit margins I am sure jobs will have to be cut due to the fact less Americans will have the ability to own health care insurance policies.

So is it any wonder corporations who now pay their employees less than $30,000.00/yr. want to see Congress put an end to this runaway inflation health care train. I mean how would it look at sometime in the future an employer would have to tell a protential employee that they would pay them $50,000.00/yr, but over half of that would be in health care benefits?

Thus, why the Republicans might think it is cute to name their bill “Repealing The Job Killing Health Care Law Act” knowing that they can only deal with finding ways so society can inflate their way out of the problem. I wonder what their solutions will be. For as more and more Americans learn that the innovations and technology is already on the internet to lower their need to go visit the Specialists in order to answer their health questions. I do see where the Health and Medical Industry will find Doctors not calling for their services.

In fact, are you aware of the Medical Movement to start charging patients lower rates if they pay by cash and forgo filing for insurance? Seems to me the first jobs on the chopping block will be those who sell health care insurance policies if the Republicans have their way.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 18, 2011 4:19 PM
Comment #317436

I have spent the last hour listening to the US House debate on the repeal of Obamacare. It is very interesting; the Republicans are using the Constitution to explain what rights government have and have not, on the other hand the Democrats argument comes from a feel good response. While the Republicans go from a point of what is legal and what is not, the Democrats are crying (literally) that it’s not fair. The Democrats are embarrassing. Do they ever get tired of telling these tear jerk stories about who knows who? I have not heard one Democrat argue from the point of “thus saith the Constitution”.

Posted by: Z at January 18, 2011 4:21 PM
Comment #317437

Well said Z. Of course, we all know that liberals consider our Constitution outdated and useless in modern America since it doesn’t further their ideas of what America should become.

Our Constitution gives power to the people and liberals can’t have that. All power must belong to the government to force people to accept what the anointed ones believe is best for them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 18, 2011 4:38 PM
Comment #317439

Z, RF,

Your crap is old and weak. Get over yourselves. We are all that ‘government’ you hate so vociferously. Hate eats at you like a cancer. Try the healing power of thought for a change.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 18, 2011 4:48 PM
Comment #317441

Where’s the facts Dude to your rant, you say try the healing power of thought, where’s your thought all I see is a stupid angry rant.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2011 5:01 PM
Comment #317442

Marysdude

I love government. But I recognize that government is not the same as us. We elect representatives to use the government as a tool to get what we want, but there is always an imperfect fit.

You know that.If you believe the government is us, why did you complain about what “you” did when Bush was your president? How about now, when Republicans control the House? And what happens in two years when Republicans might control the whole show?

Anyway, our government, as run by our representatives is working on getting smaller. Evidently we have decided to do that and since the government is “us” how can you complain?

I think liberals are in a really tight bind. They claim they want more government, but a large part of government is controlled by conservatives. Did you want to give more power to Bush?

Posted by: C&J at January 18, 2011 5:09 PM
Comment #317446

Well of course you are correct in your response to marydude C&J. We are all citizens living under the current government but we are certainly not all government.

Elections reflect the wishes of only the majority for the government they want until the next election.

I have noticed that marysdude seldom adds anything to a discussion and usually his comments merely deride and dismiss. That’s usually a sure sign that only the mouth (keyboard) is working and not the brain.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 18, 2011 5:46 PM
Comment #317447

“I have noticed that marysdude seldom adds anything to a discussion and usually his comments merely deride and dismiss. That’s usually a sure sign that only the mouth (keyboard) is working and not the brain.”

Let ye without sin Royal. Lets face facts the repubs/conservatives can rail all they want about the constitution being a rigid cast in stone document, It is not nor was it intended to be. The constitution was a framework not the entire workings of government.

Jefferson said it best-
“[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us… avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils.” —Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41


The problem with conservatives is lack of character in the movement leadership. They act like Monarchs. Once again Thomas Jefferson says it best,
“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, In the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance
without character is the path of destruction.”
Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: j2t2 at January 18, 2011 6:03 PM
Comment #317448

Z-
What makes this argument fundamentally silly is that the mandated healthcare plan that Obama used takes many of its elements from the Republican’s alternative to the Clinton plan.

So, the question is, were the Republicans for defying the constitution before they were against it?

The Republican media figures use the constitution because it pre-empts lower law. They don’t have to discuss things on their merits, or the morality of the law or its changes. All they have to do is claim that it’s not allowed under the rules of the national charter.

Of course, their claims, in many cases, depend on subjective, or more like subjunctive arguments about what would be considered constitutional if they had their way. And that’s the trouble with the line of argument.

Personally, I think the constitution permits the Affordable Care Act, and so do a lot of Democrats. Why would we need to appeal to the constitution? If we believe it’s part of the legal range of laws, then the question is between alternatives of policies, and we’re simply laying out why it’s unconscionable to go in the other direction.

Royal Flush-
The Constitution is not what’s outdated, it’s your interpretation of it.

By way over a century.

Interstate commerce is a different beast than it was in colonial times, so we need different laws to deal with it, and the constitution provides for that. Just like the Fourth Amendment provides for protection against unwarranted searches and seizures without having to refer to all the up-to-date technology, we can update our approach to interstate commerce to reflect both the new factual realities, and the new legal realities of the business world (one part being the fourteenth amendment grant of personhood that’s become part of our law).

Circumstances always affect the interpretation of the law, and the Constitution is no exception. It’s not some dead document to be framed and set on the wall, it’s the basis of a government that must constantly apply it’s prescriptions and obligation to the government of this nation. The law must be applied to be fulfilled, and if we fail to apply it, we have truly betrayed the spirit of the constitution then. But applying it means that constitutional law must be a living field, for how else do you deal with a living, changing real world?

C&J-
I believe it is essential that we consider the government and its officials, elected, hired, or appointed to be our equals, not our superiors. If they are not us, if they are not a part of our society, but above and beyond it, that itself invites unaccountability, servility, and tyranny.

This government belongs to us, is us. We will face the reckonings that come of putting whoever we put in charge, and they in turn will face our reckonings for whatever grief they put us through. It only works if they are not a class to themselves, who can act as if the rest of us are simply peasants.

Democrats, because of having this position, see government as a means to further the will of the people, and therefore we can grow or shrink government as appropriate. Size itself doesn’t matter so much as what the government, accountable to us, delivers.

Republicans, on the other hand, want to wield power, but decry it’s wielding at the same time. So they are perpetually tripping over their own need to shrink government with the need to satisfy the people, who they consider the government separate from. As such, they whipsaw between trying to starve the beast to letting it gorge on new spending, and don’t do a good job of keeping either spending or taxation moderate. Therefore, the higher deficits with every recent Republican administration.

It also explains the authoritarian attitude. If government isn’t us, but separate and above, a paternalistic attitude, an attitude that sees the government as father rather than brother, beyond accountability rather than down in the midst of it, makes perfect sense.

Would I give more power to Bush? Sometimes, yes, but you have to remember, that the executive branch isn’t just supposed to exercise power on its own behalf, but carry out the will of Congress. If it was the will of Congress that Bush curtail the misbehavior of the derivatives market, I would have certainly been for it. It would have given him more power, but not the choice to exercise it arbitrarily.

Do you see what I’m talking about? Rather than see Bush as some King entitled to do whatever he wanted, above and beyond our criticism and accountability, I see him as playing a specific role, based on the constitution that both gives him power, yet binds how he is to use it.

That is where the difference in our paradigms makes all the difference in the world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 18, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #317450

RF and Z,
At what point in time has the Constitution allowed for Government or Society to deny the goods and products produced by Commerce and Industry to all Americans?

Big problem for the Republicans and Tea Party because why they have the opportunity to ensure their children have the same privilges as they did when they grew up. In their lust to repeal the Healthcare Reform Act they are making it so that the Rich will only be able to afford 20th Century Western Medicine while the rest of Americans will out of necessity fond away to get the Health and Medical treatment they need at a much lower cost.

For I wonder if you guys are old enough to remember when the vast number of Americans didn’t need to go to the hospital to have their babies, get operations, or the medicine they needed? And given that America has already had the debate over Eastern and Folklure Medicine some 40 years ago. Can the Health and Medical Industry today defend themselves when today they cannot tell us why honey still makes the best cough medicine bar none?

So please, why Americas’ Forefathers and Ancestors have worked hard over the last two centuries to find prrofitable ways to ensure evety American can afford the goods and products made by Commerce and Industry. Explain why other than fear that this current House of Representatives does or should have the right to tell Americans what they can and cannot have?

What’s next, denying Americans the right to own a car because the Republicans and Tea Party fear they will no longer be able to afford gas?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 18, 2011 6:48 PM
Comment #317454

Z, RF, KAP,

I have contributed many sound reasoned arguments over my years here on WB. All of which were well backed up by research, or were original in a well thought out way.

Frankly, I have not seen the same from many on the right, including you three. I’ve seen trolling, and harping and blather, but little of consequence.

Until or unless you three decide to actually think through a problem, back that up with research, and explain it in a way that makes sense, I’d suggest you not find fault with the short succinct responses from anyone else.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 18, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #317455

“What makes this argument fundamentally silly is that the mandated healthcare plan that Obama used takes many of its elements from the Republican’s alternative to the Clinton plan.”

Not only that. It was actually proposed and passed in Massachusetts by a Republican governor with full support of conservative think tanks (e.g., Heritage Foundation). The approach may fail. But, it is fundamentally a conservative plan.

Posted by: Rich at January 18, 2011 8:04 PM
Comment #317456

I find it interesting that conservatives are using the constitution in defense of their position and liberals simply discount the constitution as a worthless piece of old hemp. And, we see and hear the same positions playing out in congress.

Mr. Daugherty must have fatigued his fingers in his attempt to convince us that the constitution doesn’t mean what was written and that brilliant constitutional students posing as liberals, such as he, understand it better than we mere conservatives.

We change the constitution by adding or deleting amendments to it and at the apparent whimsy of liberals. I have come to believe that not only are many liberals suffering from a mental disorder, but that they are among the world’s greatest contortionists by virtue of the way they can twist and turn their thinking about the constitution to suit whatever orgasmic social justice scheme is popular at the moment.

The libs are hanging all their hopes on the commerce clause. Well, we will find out soon enough if the courts believe it is constitutional to force Americans to purchase products. At last count, 26 states have filed suit to prevent such perverse action.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 18, 2011 8:09 PM
Comment #317457

Stephen, You said “Royal Flush, the constitution is not outdated it’s your interpretation of it.” So one question Stephen which interpretation is correct the “Liberal” interpretation or the “Conservative” interpretation? We have seen both sides abuse the constitution to their own advantage. It is the job of the SCOTUS to interpretate the Constitution, but even there we have seen at times depending on what side has the Presidency and how many Justices retire load up the SCOTUS to their advantage, so even there Stephen we can see abuses. The only alternative would be Neutral Justices interpretation of the Constitution void of any party bias, but we all know that will never happen.
Dude, just commenting like you do at times.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #317459

Stephen

Naturally, I see it differently. Both of us evidently believe that when our guys are in, that they are doing the will of the people. I think that Democrats override the will of the people and behave arrogantly - think Nancy Pelosi - we will tell you what’s in the bill after it has passed.

IMO - no party really represents “the people”, but Republicans generally come closer. They call the House of Representatives “the people’s House”. In the last elections, Republicans won big. Therefore we have to assume that this year, at least, the Republicans are the party of the people.

The tea party, BTW, is the only really large grass roots movement I have seen in my life and the Democrats hate it.

I don’t know why Democrats and liberals always think that they represent “the people” even when they don’t win a majority of the votes.

Finally - the person who represents me best is … me. That is why I like to make my own choices when possible. I prefer not to delegate those choices to politicians.

Posted by: C&J at January 18, 2011 8:40 PM
Comment #317460

Why the PPACA is constitutional.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 18, 2011 8:43 PM
Comment #317461

”..but that they are among the world’s greatest contortionists by virtue of the way they can twist and turn their thinking about the constitution to suit whatever orgasmic social justice scheme is popular at the moment.”

Sure, conservatives are all Constitutional originalists. Except, of course, when it comes to their special interests. The “Citizens’ United” decision by a conservative court finding corporations as equivalent to naturally born citizens was an absurd stretch of the plain meaning of citizen in the Constitution. The founding fathers would have laughed at the idea. Corporations, at the time, were strictly limited entities under state charters.

Posted by: Rich at January 18, 2011 8:44 PM
Comment #317462

Have we learned nothing?

Let zealots keep the over-the-top rants, the name calling, the finger pointing, and the misguided misrepresentations. The American people cannot be hustled forever.

Let this play out. I think the Republicans may find out they have gone to the well once too often.

BTW, nothing in the constitution allows businesses (corporations) the right to act as legal entities. The government allows it. Be careful where you tread with your arguments.

Posted by: LibRick at January 18, 2011 9:10 PM
Comment #317463

Guess I should have read ALL the posts first! Sorry, Rich. We were thinking along the same lines there.

Posted by: LibRick at January 18, 2011 9:11 PM
Comment #317464

LibRick,

Understand. The Citizens’ United decision is such a glaring example of conservative judicial “activism” that it is hard to believe that conservatives still cling to the idea that they are constitutional purists.

Posted by: Rich at January 18, 2011 9:24 PM
Comment #317465

An analogy:

My sister married a real jerk who hoarded money from her, drank excessively, and verbally abused her and the kids. After 12 years of that crap she divorced the guy. She doesn’t talk bad about him because he’s the father of her children. She gets angry when we talk poorly of him.

He lied in court. The judge gave my sister basically what she wanted, 50/50 on assets and child support. Believe me, she wants to be free of this control freak. He’s hard on the kids. Lies to them about her. Talks extremely ugly about her to the kids (he gets them 50% of the time… he’s getting tired of that, but he knows it gets my sister’s goat to jerk her around on pick up times, vacations, holidays, etc. Last year he made the kids miss 2 days of the weeklong extended family vacation.

Problem for him… the kids are turning into teenagers. Soon he won’t be able to jerk them or her around anymore. The kids realize who takes care of them and sacrifices for them. What lies in store for the dad in 6 or 8 years? What hold does he have on anyone in the family then? Nothing. He’s lost his credibility, his respect, … he’s lost it all. (he’d have been better off leaving her for another woman. At least he’d have someone instead of being lonely and bitter.)

You see, you might hold the cards today… but eventually people will decide who you are based on “facts on the ground”. Bluster, lies, and bullying cannot be hidden away or endured forever.

Best to live with honor and compassion. Those things last. People who put forth bills entitled “Repealing The Job Killing Health Care Law Act” should consider that.

Posted by: LibRick at January 18, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #317472

What happens when 26 states make their case to the SC and they rule obamacare unconstitutional? Don’t tell me, I know, the left will ignore the results, blame the court, and move on to another dead horse to beat.

By the way Stephen, I did not have to offer proof, I was eyewitness to cspan and the debate. In other words, I saw what happened. If you would turn off olbermann and maddow, and watch cspan, you would learn something.

Posted by: Z at January 18, 2011 11:47 PM
Comment #317473

“The tea party, BTW, is the only really large grass roots movement I have seen in my life and the Democrats hate it.”

Ross Perot and the Reform party was big in the beginning C&J. The teabaggers are just JBS types and other associated extremist.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 19, 2011 1:14 AM
Comment #317475

J2T2,
You forgot to add that Ross Perot and the Reform Party ran Presidential Candidates where the Tea Party allowed themselves to become just another arm of the Republican Party. Sort of like if the Democrats had a Pro-Business Party side with them in the 2012 Elections.

Which to me would be alright. For than we could debate the issue of American Businesses and Policies being Pro-American Worker Worker against the “No-Nothing Party” and the “Spend-Nothing Party” which would rather invest overseas than see President Obama lead America away from the edge of financial ruin.

Besides, I do believe the Civil Rights Movement has all of them beat hands down. Yet, I’m not sure why C&J wouldn’t include them since I think is old enough to have lived through those days? Wilful selection of memory or not wanting to admit his age, you decide.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 8:01 AM
Comment #317476

Z,
What will the Conservatives do when the SC rules Obama Care is constitutional? For under the argument of National Security, Public Safety Domain, General Welfare, Domoestic Tranquality, and probably a few others I can’t think of right now. I do believe the idea of 150 years of Commerce being denied to most Americans because some on Wall Street and Main Street are worried adding additional people to the rolls of private insurance companies will ration health and medical care for them really don’t meet the standards.

For just as Americans are mandated to buy auto, home, and workmens comp insurance. As long as certain steps are taken to ensure those who cannot afford it on their own are helped than why not mandate health care insurance since without it you cause great harm to other Individuals, States, and National Security?

Especially considering that Western Medicine as we know it will be put at risk if Congress does nothing to solve the problem of run away health costs? Might be a good reason the Republicans are not enjoying the support they thought they had.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 8:17 AM
Comment #317479

Well Henry, I guess we will see if the SC supports over 50% of the states or not.

I guess, for all the rhetoric we hear from the liberals, we will see how many democrats vote with Republicans to repeal obamacare. I make a prediction we will see democrats, who voted FOR obamacare, now vote against obamacare. We will be able to discuss the reason after today.

Stephen, your lengthy discourses are not intelligence based. They are liberal socialist democrat talking points and BS. In fact your discourses are boring and I can’t help but speed read through them and only hit the high points. The talk from the left is always the same stuff. So you say the republicans voted for healthcare before they voted against it; I thought that was Kerry who voted for, before he voted against.

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 8:58 AM
Comment #317480

RF, Z,

Stephen posed an interesting question in an earlier post that has gone unanswered: when and why did conservatives flip on the issue of obligatory basic health insurance?

In 2003, in Congressional testimony, this is what the Heritage Foundation had to say about a mandate for purchase of health insurance:

“….it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

“The obligations on individuals does not have to be a “hard” mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a “soft” mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements.” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Laying-the-Groundwork-for-Universal-Health-Care-Coverage

I don’t know about you, but from my reading, the current health law mandate is entirely consistent with the conservative approach advocated in 2003. It is not a hard mandate. It is not illegal to fail to purchase health insurance. It is a “soft” mandate utilizing the tax code to create incentives and disincentives.

So, what changed in conservative thinking?

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 9:06 AM
Comment #317484

>So, what changed in conservative thinking?
Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 09:06 AM


Rich,

Trolls took over the conservative agenda?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 19, 2011 10:30 AM
Comment #317488

Royal Flush-

I find it interesting that conservatives are using the constitution in defense of their position and liberals simply discount the constitution as a worthless piece of old hemp.

Oh, so you find your fantasies of what Democrats believe interesting? So do I, but not for reasons that flatter you.

Mr. Daugherty must have fatigued his fingers in his attempt to convince us that the constitution doesn’t mean what was written and that brilliant constitutional students posing as liberals, such as he, understand it better than we mere conservatives.

Interesting that you take up the matter of my fingers being fatigued. Though I’m touched by your concern, it is unnecessary, since I’m a longtime touch typist who is used to writing at length, and can fill up 5-10 pages of single spaced text in a single day.

But really, that’s a distraction. You’re trying to say that you conservatives understand it better than everybody else, so you have no room to criticize us for offering our opinion and considering it superior. Secondly, I’m not saying that it doesn’t mean what it means. I’m saying that an obsession with the letter of the law should not keep us from applying the actual issue the constitution is aimed at in a particular case. The example I gave was the Fourth Amendment. A literalist could declare that since electronic and telecommunication-related are not mentioned there, they are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. They could also say, for the same reason, that the press can be censored by the government when it posts things online, because that doesn’t deal with an actual press.

The Framers, when they guaranteed our freedoms and structured our government, were not writing with this fundamentalist-style literalism that gets employed nowadays by the right. There are concepts behind the literal content that the framers wanted honored, in the case of the Fourth Amendment, the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, which they elaborated on according to the technology of the day.

There’s much that’s changed in our world in terms of communication, in terms of the way we do business, and the way we travel. Is it better to change the constitution to reflect petty little details about the same old concepts, or to take the core meaning of the constitutional provisions, and apply that to the new circumstances? I happen to think this approach works fine, and reduces the complication that comes from the excessive revision of our national charter.

But the key is, we’re applying the meaning, and everything derives from that.

As for the 26 states filing their lawsuits? Republican attorney generals trying to bolster their wingnut credentials. The problem will be that to invalidate the healthcare law, they’ll have to mess up a whole lot more than one healthcare law. For a bunch of people who claim to love the constitution, you love to force constitutional crises.

KAP-
Neutrality is not meant to happen. The system is designed to ensure that the courts reflect, at least in some fashion, the point of view of both the Senate and the President, elected officials. In a Democracy, the game is not to put in places those who are above the fray, but to pit the different factions against one another. Whatever your worries might be, it will be decades before George W. Bush’s mark on the courts is undone.

And that is by the Framers’ design. So, too, with Obama’s choices. And so too with the next president, if they get the chance.

I don’t like to wade in, screaming “judicial activism”. I think it’s a very unfortunate, very risky political game that undermines, without legitimate grounds, the reputation of the courts, and their legitimacy in the eyes of the populartion. Part of how this Democracy works is that we agree that the elections will decided the legitimacy of the elected officials, and that however we disagree with them, they will carry the power and the authority that the constitution grants them.

If there are accusations of abuses, let the accusers offer proof. We can disagree with decisions (Citizens United for one) without having to say that the judges are illegitimate.

C&J-
Each representative, each Senator, represents a slice of the population, a state in the union, and that is as it should be. The government as a whole, though, represents the people, not any party alone.

The Tea Party, a grassroots movement?

See if you can follow me around the room on this. Who starts this off?

Well, Rick Santelli, a CNBC Reporter ranting about mortgages modifications on the floor of the stock exchange, cheered on by bond traders. Already, you have a reporter for a major, establishment news organization, and he’s taking the position of what are, these days, the economic elite of the country.

Who maintains it? Well, in the Healthcare fight, you see soon to be Florida governor Rick Scott, a man who lost his position as CEO at a Healthcare company over a billion dollar Medicare fraud pushing one company. You have Dick Armey, a longtime Washington insider and Former House Majority Leader leading up Freedomworks, and tied in with it all are the scions of Koch Industries, billionaires who control a giant energy company.

And, of course, you get a hell of a lot of backup from Glenn Beck and others at Fox News, who help rally up viewers and others to support the GOP’s new wave of election victories, right along with untold millions in support from corporations freed by the Citizens United decisions.

Grassroots? Like the stuff on the floor of the Astrodome. That it pretends to be grassroots is part and parcel of why Liberals hate it. It’s the same faux populism that’s been used for decades to cover for elitist policies people otherwise wouldn’t stomach. Policies like tax cuts for the rich that don’t filter down benefits to those in the lower classes, but create deficits that the upper classes use to justify austerity that mainly hurts them. Only if people imagine that they might get a job because of those cuts is it worth it.

And, of course, the Bush tax cuts basically failed on that point, and if it weren’t for the deflationary nature of this recession, we’d be letting those cuts lapse to help cut down the deficit.

Z-
What happens when pigs fly out my ears and my hair jumps off my head and does a dance?

So much of right-wing opinion about what’s constitutional is built on hypothetical decisions going their way. They haven’t had that good of a track record, as of late.

As for being a witness? That doesn’t excuse the failure to bring forth actually quotes, factchecking them, and making the comparison. As for Olbermann and Maddow, I don’t watch them that much. I seek out my information on my own. That’s not to validate any claims of them being unreliable sources. They’re quite good at their fact finding, I just don’t need to watch them so much to learn about what’s going on.

I wonder, if we actually compared the degree of our mutual awareness, who would really come out on top.

As for who votes for the Patient’s Rights Repeal? I don’t think you’ll get so many converts, and here’s why: they will still get bashed over their first vote. You guys won’t seriously give them any credit for the healthcare bill, and lose the chance to bash them into defeat.

Stephen, your lengthy discourses are not intelligence based. They are liberal socialist democrat talking points and BS. In fact your discourses are boring and I can’t help but speed read through them and only hit the high points. The talk from the left is always the same stuff. So you say the republicans voted for healthcare before they voted against it; I thought that was Kerry who voted for, before he voted against.

Wow. You just convinced me. I mean, all this time, all I really needed was some guy on the internet to simply flatly state the truth, and the insight would come rushing into me from on high, flooding my consciousness with the desire to watch Glenn Beck.

Seriously, though, you can make claims that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but readers can see for themselves that the things I claim are true. Job creation WAS abyssmal under Bush, even with the supposed boosts that came of the Tax Cuts. It’s the Wall Street Journal backing me on that.

I have previously documented the fact that the Republicans lead a bipartisan coalition to undermine the laws separating financial institutions of different kinds from each other. I’ve documented the Free-Marketers resistance and finally banning of the further regulation of derivatives. I’ve documented the part Cheney, his task force, the Republican majority and others had in shaping the laws that allowed BP to take such a collossal risk with the Macondo Well.

I’ve documented how the traditional scapegoats of the Republican Party for the collapse of 2008 were largely squeezed out of the housing boom, and how most events that made the collapse inevitable took place before the Democrats even got into power. I’ve documented the role of the derivatives and the machinations on Wall Street in causing the collapse.

If you go through my comments and my articles, you’ll see one link after another providing the evidence for my claims. You? You’re the one just floating the talking points, slinging those provocative, focus-grouped words designed to inflame passions rather than inform.

I can show people why my opinions, why my talking points, why my liberalism reflects something real, and not merely theories which are a figment of my imagination. You? You have to back up such blatant stupidity as the “death panels” coming out of a provision that allows old folks to determine what level of critical care and life support they’ll remain on, and who can make their decisions in their stead when they can no longer do so.

Kerry can at least say that he voted for a bill funding the troops that had the provisions he wanted in them before he voted against one that didn’t have them. The rhetoric was tortured, but not the thought behind them. Republicans have to justify raging against this innocuous position as some sort of Spanish Inquisition kangaroo court, having previously supported it as a sensible, helpful provision. They sacrificed a practical policy for a fashionable political lie.

Better to do something you can be proud of and screw up the messaging, than to succeed at lying to the public your absolute failures on policy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2011 11:12 AM
Comment #317490

Z,
Although it would not be the first time the SC has gone against the conventional wisdom of the states, I do wonder if they will even hear the case(s) put in front of them. For while I understand the states right to deal with health care within their borders to include not wanting certain health care insurance companies businesses. I’m not sure how or if the judges want/will view the need to expand the rolls of health care insurance coverage in order to keep Western Medicine, R&D, as well as our First Responders funded.

For although I’m not sure you are old enough to remembe the great debate between Eastern, Western, and Folklure Medicine 30-40 years ago or are aware of the leaps we have made since that time. However, the judges if they accept the case(s) will have to also consider what other type of medicine will come into play if the health care insurance companies only have to pay for the health Americans to be covered.

Because why I have my ideas on what can be done to ensure the average American can still enjoy the same health and medical coverabe as the President of the United States of America, not an expert in the field or able to keep up with all the latest innovations and technology I can only being to imagine how far we can take Home Health and Medical Services in the 21st Century. Especially knowing what our forefathers and ancestors did before the movement a 150 years ago to have such a beast known as Health Insurance.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 11:28 AM
Comment #317491

Rich,
Didn’t the Republlicans mandate that Seniors purchase their Pharm Bill?

Because why I don’t remember if they used those words, wasn’t the outcome the same?

Keep drawing a blank on how they decided on Plan A or Plan B or even created the $2,500.00 gap closed by the health care reform act.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 11:38 AM
Comment #317492

>Better to do something you can be proud of and screw up the messaging, than to succeed at lying to the public your absolute failures on policy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2011 11:12 AM

Stephen,

Hear! Hear!

They’ve gored Gore over the Internet thing, and Kerry over the ‘for it, against it’ thing until they’ve been disproved a thousand times, yet still defend their own weaknesses by citing them…what rot!

Posted by: Marysdude at January 19, 2011 11:51 AM
Comment #317494

Henry writes; “For just as Americans are mandated to buy auto, home, and workmens comp insurance.”

Sorry Henry, that simply is not true. No auto, no home, no business, no insurance. By the way, home insurance is only required by the lender if you want a mortgage, not by government.

Someone wrote they only read Mr. Daugherty’s “high points” as the rest is boring and just regurgitation of all that went before. Frankly, lately it’s been difficult to even find the high point…only the regurgitated material.

I would add that I, and others, have often and successfully discounted Mr. Daugherty’s “facts” as merely someones opinion he co-opted.

In fact, in one memorable and hilarious (for me, not so much for Stephen) writing bout he finally concluded after a lengthy jousting on a political subject that, (paraphrasing) “Well, we just disagree on the facts.”

I still laugh when I think of that comment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 12:18 PM
Comment #317496

Royal Flush-

Sorry Henry, that simply is not true. No auto, no home, no business, no insurance. By the way, home insurance is only required by the lender if you want a mortgage, not by government.

You need proof of insurance in my state to get renewals of registration and inspections, to drive your car around.

Sorry, but Texas is one of the state that mandates auto insurance.

Plenty of other States mandate auto insurance as well.

I back my opinions with those of others, along with documentable facts because it keeps me from being out on a limb that others have the opportunity to saw out from under me. You can laugh, but I didn’t just get a checkable fact wrong.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2011 1:01 PM
Comment #317497

Royal Flush,
Why Common Knowledge might lead one to believe it is the Lender who requires Home owner Insurance if you care to look behind the doors you will see that Government demands such steps be taken in order to protect the Stockholder. So why one can say it is the lender who makes you get the insurance, in the Eyes of the Government they don’t care who pays for the insurance as long as the insurance will help offset any loss due to damage or fire.

Strange how things like that work. But just like you don’t have to have insurance on a ship, yet can’t leave most ports without insurance on the cargo. Nevertheless, I do believe we need to keep looking under the hood and ask why does our Elected Officials want us to do things a certain way. A luxury I might add which is not afforded to most children.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 1:01 PM
Comment #317498

C’mon Stephen…read more carefully before writing…”Sorry, but Texas is one of the state that mandates auto insurance.”

I wrote…”No auto, no home, no business, no insurance.”

Surely Stephen you are not saying that those with no automobile must have auto insurance? Or…is that another of your fictitious “facts”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 1:22 PM
Comment #317499

Henry, I suppose one could parse it to mean what you write. That’s a giant leap to make however.

And of course, if there is no mortgage involved there is no insurance required by anyone. I live in Texas and whenever a home burns down or blows away they usually report it on local TV. Sadly, sometimes they add that the homeowners had no insurance. If you believe I am wrong Henry, please direct me to that evidence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 1:29 PM
Comment #317500


Considering the fact that we have a conservative court, one must come to the conclusion that the Republicans are just constitutionally posturing for the constituents.

Why aren’t the House Republicans working on a jobs bill instead?

The number of jobs in the health care industry will primarily be based on the demand by baby boomers.

IBM has estimated that it will receive $400 million in subsidies from the Medicare Prescription Drug Act over a 6 year period starting in 2006.

Posted by: jlw at January 19, 2011 1:38 PM
Comment #317501

Democrats, when passing the Health Care Bill, used the CBO to substantiate their claims that it would save money and jobs.

Here’s an example of the accuracy in government agency reporting and why we should be suspicious of rosy scenarios.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS IN FAR WORSE SHAPE THAN YOU THINK

“That the trustees could miss estimates only a few months into the future by such huge margins calls into question the accuracy of their long-term projections, which are stated in the report:”

“The Treasury needed to borrow money to pay Social Security benefits in 15 our of the last 25 months.”

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/retirement/social-security-far-worse-shape-than-you-think/19804267/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk5%7C37184

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 1:44 PM
Comment #317505

Royal Flush-
You accuse me of parsing things too finely?

Look, if you don’t have a home, you don’t have homeowners insurance. Same thing with an automobile, same thing with business.

But who the hell doesn’t have a body, doesn’t have health, of one kind of quality or another? It’s the one thing the rich and the poor both have, and both must deal with.

So, you fail this argument, by the simple truth that healthcare is a need for everybody, where those other kinds of assets may not be held in common by all. And yes, it remains true, whether I misunderstood you or not, that the states mandate other kinds of insurance when people get a product, like an automobile, that requires it.

As for what the economists estimated, I’d like to know what the bottom side of the estimates were, because the folks I know put error bars on either side of their estimates, due to the natural uncertainties of economic forecasts.

Of course, if you’re just trying to discredit people, maybe you forget to include the full character of the estimate, and just focus on the precise figure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2011 2:19 PM
Comment #317506

Royal Flush-
Also, if you’re that concerned about Social Security, why not do away with the cap on incomes affected? That would make Social Security solvent way into the future, even in these troubled times.

But of course, you’ve already discounted such options, haven’t you?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2011 2:34 PM
Comment #317510

Mr. Daugherty agrees with me after I corrected his comment by writing…”Look, if you don’t have a home, you don’t have homeowners insurance. Same thing with an automobile, same thing with business.”

Thank you for your response.

And so, in usual liberal fashion he changes the subject to suit his argument about why folks must be forced to purchase a product. He bases the requirement upon the fact that living people are alive. Well GOLLEEEE, what a revelation. I can sure agree with that but it has no bearing on why the Health Care Bill is unconstitutional in that it forces us to purchase a product merely because we are alive. And of course, the real reason is that Stephen and other liberals know what is best for us.

Using Stephen’s quote we can examine the circular logic in play…”And yes, it remains true, whether I misunderstood you or not, that the states mandate other kinds of insurance when people get a product, like an automobile, that requires it.”

Notice here that Stephen writes…”when people get a product”…not when government requires that you purchase a product. And in Mr. Daugherty’s liberal world being alive is now a “product”.

Mr. Daugherty brings new meaning into the saying…”Get a life”.

I linked to a story about Social Security in worse shape than we think. Obviously Stephen didn’t bother to read it as he wrote; “As for what the economists estimated, I’d like to know what the bottom side of the estimates were, because the folks I know put error bars on either side of their estimates, due to the natural uncertainties of economic forecasts.”

The article reported actual spending, not estimates. Once again Mr. Daugherty is long on guesswork but short on facts.

On a lighter note I must thank Mr. Daugherty for the endless hours of entertainment he provides me and others.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 3:10 PM
Comment #317511

Royal Flush-
Also, if you’re that concerned about Social Security, why not do away with the cap on incomes affected? That would make Social Security solvent way into the future, even in these troubled times.

But of course, you’ve already discounted such options, haven’t you?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2011

In his frustration Stephen again changes the subject. I didn’t express my concern, but rather, linked to an article showing that the SS administrators can’t even predict costs and revenues two months out. And, I used this to bring into question democrats projecting the savings of their health care bill and making projections out for 10 years or more.

As for discounting any options regarding SS solvency as Stephen claims, I find it amusing that he believes he can read my mind.

Acutally, I could support increasing the cap on income on which SS is collected under certain circumstances. I will leave it up to Stephen and his crystal ball to conjure up what those circumstances might be.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 3:19 PM
Comment #317512

Royal Flush,
Sad to say, but Texas is not the only place that happens. And though I feel sorry for the home owners, I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would not have insurance even if they didn’t owe a dime on the place.

However, one of the saddest things I heard about someone not having insurance was a guy who just purchased his first brand new car. For even though he managed to do everything right, the day delay between switching his insurance from his old car to his new one ended up costing I think around $30,000.00 dollars. Because why I don’t now what the odds are of having an accident within 24 hours, on the way home his car was totaled by an uninsured motorist.

And why that is not the same as losing a home or finding out you need a major emergency operation, I do see why we need insurance (of all sorts) to protect our financial future. Yet, I am amazed that society still hasn’t figured out how to allow us to own an All-in-One insurance policy. Given that after all, doesn’t being Self-Insured mean you can deal with any accident or misfortune?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #317514

Henry, there are umbrella insurance products that cover many risks or perils. When one begins to mix the risks of life, health, auto and home, considering that each must measure differing risk factors and rating configurations, it becomes a nightmare. I don’t think it is possible…but would be nice and convenient.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 3:39 PM
Comment #317516

RF,
Told not to go in those waters as a child, that is one part I will leave alone so others can explore the reasons why.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 4:00 PM
Comment #317518

RF,

You do realize that the “requirement” to purchase health insurance is hardly a new thing? The government already requires us to pay taxes to support a large array of government services, from national defense and the justice system to our roads and welfare systems. If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, then it means it is unconstitutional for Congress “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”, which is absurd.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 19, 2011 4:51 PM
Comment #317519

Royal Flush,

Despite all your claims that you have debunked liberal claims with facts, I am still waiting for your explanation of why conservatives flipped on obligatory basic health insurance.

Henry points out an interesting hypocrisy in the current opposition to the mandate for purchase of health insurance. The Republican sponsored Medicare pharmaceutical program contains a very similar form of mandate. Upon reaching 65, a senior must enroll in one of the supported drug insurance programs or carry an equivalent alternative policy. In the event that the person fails to enroll, he/she will be permanently penalized a certain percentage of the cost of a policy for the period out of enrollment.

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 5:04 PM
Comment #317520

Royal Flush-
If we were to repeal HCR tomorrow, It would only end the mandate for purchasing coverage as a product. But, even if people do not purchase coverage as a product, they seek out healthcare services as a product nearly universally, and that fact has a very significant effect on our economy.

The lack of coverage is therefore a legitimate matter for government regulation, especially since those who lack coverage crowd emergency rooms and seek treatment that costs providers and the folks who do pay premiums much more.

The mandate itself is a tax, which the Constitution says is legal for the federal government to levy. Equally so is the tax break those with coverage get. The Republicans have used the machinery of the tax code quite often to shape behavior through the use of tax breaks. Why is it unconstitutional for the Democrats to do the same?

In essence, you talk of unconstitutionality through this weird mix of wishful thinking about what the document says, rather than just running through the basic rationales and seeing whether it passes the tests.

You talk of unconstitutionality because you’re not prepared to have an honest debate about a policy that was once your alternative to the Clinton plan. Republicans seem to have a talent nowadays for contradicting themselves when they want to get their base up in arms. They count on people not to remember, and unfortunately, all too many people forget what their own party once stood for. Eastasia has always been our ally, Oceania has always been our enemy, right?

As for what I said about error bars?

I am asking for the basic proof of his point. If the range of uncertainty includes the actual value, then his point is clearly wrong. If it doesn’t, we can then begin the debate as to why it didn’t come out as anticipated.

If the answer is, more people are retiring and taking social security, and fewer people are paying into the system as employees, then the obvious answer to the problem is not the Republican’s proposed cuts, which won’t phase in soon, nor resolve the economic situation, but to improve the employment picture.

Even your author states that one reason for pessimism is the likelihood of long-term unemployment. We have to ask ourselves, is doing nothing about that long term unemployment but tax cuts for the people who are already flush with cash anyways a workable solution.

If not, then we ought to conclude that combatting unemployment is a critical national priority, because repairing the employment situation will help lower outlays, raise revenues, reduce the need for government assistance, reduce the need for people to go on Social Security early, etc, etc, etc.

As for reading your mind? No, your actions. If somebody made a comment anticipating that I would end up writing something on Watchblog, they wouldn’t have to be psychic to predict that, just observant.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2011 5:17 PM
Comment #317521

Warped, read your comments but difficult to respond when you are comparing airplanes with broomsticks.

Rich, Medicare Part D is not mandatory. The penalty you refer to is for late enrollment.

“The Part D program was created by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). For most beneficiaries, Part D drug coverage is an optional benefit.
.Enrollment
Everyone with Medicare is eligible for Part D prescription drug coverage. Beneficiaries can enroll during the first six months of Medicare eligibility and each year from November 15 to December 31.
Late Enrollment
For most Medicare beneficiaries, it is a good idea to enroll in a Part D plan during the initial six-month enrollment period. There is often a late enrollment penalty if Part D plan enrollment is delayed
.

Read more: Is Enrollment in Medicare Part D Mandatory? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5757705_enrollment-medicare-part-mandatory_.html#ixzz1BWRUJ900

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #317522

The theoretical basis for differentiating mandatory health insurance from other state mandated insurance, i.e., auto, is that you can avoid the auto insurance mandate by simply choosing not to drive a car but you can’t opt out of the health mandate.

Well, for the vast majority of people this is a distinction without a difference. But more importantly, it is a disingenuous argument. It is not truly possible to opt out of the health care system. It is an unfortunate fact that we all will eventually experience a catastrophic medical event. Whether voluntarily or involuntarily, the uninsured will find their way to publicly supported emergency rooms/hospitals legally obligated to provide life stabilizing services.

Warped has suggested a resolution to this dilemma: anybody can opt out of the health insurance mandate without tax penalty upon signing an affidavit waiving any emergency or other life stabilizing medical services.

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #317523

RF,
I hope you are aware that the “mandate” in the PPACA’s individual mandate is nothing more than a tax penalty. Anyone is free to go without health insurance if they pay the penalty. A much more concrete example of a similar program already in existence are the various tax deductions already found in our tax codes. The government penalizes the taxes of people who refuse to buy certain products (such as home mortgages). How is this different from PPACA’s individual mandate?

I live in Massachusetts, where we already have an individual mandate and it has worked very well. It is impossible to prohibit heinous practices such as rescission and denials of coverage due to “preexisting conditions” without an individual mandate of some sort. Get rid of the mandate and you bring back those practices.

I’ve recently written about the individual mandate in Massachusetts. If the mandate is so much of a problem, it would be much better to create some sort of waiver system than to repeal PPACA entirely.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 19, 2011 5:48 PM
Comment #317524

Mr. Daugherty writes; “The mandate itself is a tax, which the Constitution says is legal for the federal government to levy.”

US District Judge Henry Hudson said Virginia’s case raises constitutional issues – mainly whether Congress has the right under the Commerce Clause to regulate and tax a person’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce.

We will see if your interpretation of the constitution is correct.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 5:55 PM
Comment #317525

Royal Flush,

Medicare Part D is indeed optional. But not in a practical sense. The cumulative and permanent penalties for failing to enroll are clearly designed to coerce seniors into purchasing the supported private drug programs. It is designed to limit the “free rider” problem (purchasing a drug plan only when you eventually need it) just as the tax penalties for failing to purchase health insurance are designed to limit “free riders” in direct medical services.

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 6:11 PM
Comment #317527

Royal Flush-
They will participate in the Healthcare industry at some point, and this provision is essential to pushing them to participate in it with some sort of coverage, whether from the government, or from private industry.

And you know, This isn’t seeing whether my interpretation of the constitution is correct, this is seeing whether the Republican’s of the 1990’s is correct.

Why won’t you answer that simple question of why the Republicans suggested a method of ensuring universal coverage that they would later claim was unconstitutional? Were they right before, or are they right now?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2011 6:16 PM
Comment #317528
to regulate and tax a person’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce.

The status quo before PPACA is that everyone has a right to be treated in a hospital emergency room regardless of their coverage or ability to pay. Michael Merlina is a man who is receiving a lot of attention in Massachusetts because he is the plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the commonwealth’s individual mandate. What Michael Merlina doesn’t realize is that when he “had no insurance” he actually was covered for anything catastrophic that would have required a visit to the emergency room under the commonwealth’s health care reform law. In other words, it is impossible for one to not participate in interstate commerce (or intrastate commerce in the case of Massachusetts’ health care reform law). The only way to let someone to not participate in this commerce would be one of a number of opt-out schemes that have been discussed by liberals.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 19, 2011 6:22 PM
Comment #317529

Warped writes; “The government penalizes the taxes of people who refuse to buy certain products (such as home mortgages).”

Nice try Warped but incorrect. Home owners and non-hone owners both can use the same tax form. When inputing the information the qualified home owner puts in a dollar amount that affects the tax he owes. The non home-owner puts a zero dollar amount which does not affect the tax he owes.

I doubt your argument will be used by federal lawyers defending against the suits brought by 26 states. But then, who knows, you may want to give them a call.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 6:23 PM
Comment #317531

Rich said:

“RF, Z,
Stephen posed an interesting question in an earlier post that has gone unanswered: when and why did conservatives flip on the issue of obligatory basic health insurance?
In 2003, in Congressional testimony, this is what the Heritage Foundation had to say about a mandate for purchase of health insurance:
Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 09:06 AM”

Good liberal talking points, but not true. Your quote is meant to sound like it comes from The Heritage Foundation, but you missed the intro:

“Testimony given March 10, 2003 before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate.
My name is Stuart Butler. I am Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.”

This is Stuart Butler’s opinion and not that of conservatives. Plus, the article says nothing about Republican House and Senate members supporting it.

The title of the article is “Laying the Groundwork for Universal Health Care Coverage”, perhaps you or Mr. Daugherty, or some other socialist could give us on conservative republican politician who is in favor of universal health care coverage?

Jlw said:
“Considering the fact that we have a conservative court, one must come to the conclusion that the Republicans are just constitutionally posturing for the constituents.
Why aren’t the House Republicans working on a jobs bill instead?
The number of jobs in the health care industry will primarily be based on the demand by baby boomers.
IBM has estimated that it will receive $400 million in subsidies from the Medicare Prescription Drug Act over a 6 year period starting in 2006.
Posted by: jlw at January 19, 2011 01:38 PM”

Golly Gee, jlw, why aren’t the House Republicans working on a jobs bill? Could it be, this is what they promised their constituents when the whipped the democrats in November? But I have a better question, if you have the guts to answer, why did obama and the dems spend the first 2 years ramming obamacare down our throats and no working on the economy and jobs. And don’t come back the the “jobs saved or created” crap. Unemployment is still almost 10% nationally, with 17%+ underemployed.

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #317532

Rich, I proved that your comment was incorrect. Don’t wish to parse words and meaning with you now.

Warped writes; “…it is impossible for one to not participate in interstate commerce (or intrastate commerce in the case of Massachusetts’ health care reform law).”

Why would you equate that with being forced to buy a product?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 6:39 PM
Comment #317533

Royal said:

“Sorry Henry, that simply is not true. No auto, no home, no business, no insurance.”

And Mr. Daugherty answered with,

“You need proof of insurance in my state to get renewals of registration and inspections, to drive your car around.

Sorry, but Texas is one of the state that mandates auto insurance.

Plenty of other States mandate auto insurance as well.

I back my opinions with those of others, along with documentable facts because it keeps me from being out on a limb that others have the opportunity to saw out from under me. You can laugh, but I didn’t just get a checkable fact wrong.”

I guess you missed this one Mr. Daugherty. I’m a dumb old ignorant conservative and even I understood what Royal was saying, har,har,har, hahaha. And you even added a link, hahahahaha.

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 6:44 PM
Comment #317534

Good answer to Rich’s question “Z”. Thanks for taking care of that while I was swatting the other mosquitoes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 6:46 PM
Comment #317535

“Why won’t you answer that simple question of why the Republicans suggested a method of ensuring universal coverage that they would later claim was unconstitutional? Were they right before, or are they right now?”

Royal Flush, this is the question that you simply refuse to address. Your whole argument in this thread is based upon the constitutionality of the mandatory health insurance provisions of the health care act. What distinguishes this law from the Republican alternatives proposed in 1993; the conservative think tank proposals in the early 2000s; the mandatory health insurance provisions implemented in Mass. by a conservative governor in 2006 with support of conservative pundits and think tanks?

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #317536

Sorry Rich…”Z” beat me to it and did a great job.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 6:51 PM
Comment #317537

I have been wondering if a liberal congress passed legislation calling for “Mandatory Speech”, meaning that all American’s would be forced by law to say something, would liberals on WB defend that as “Free Speech”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 7:02 PM
Comment #317538

Here’s a good question for you socialist who think it is “not fair” to repeal obamacare:

Why would this be true, “Voters Think Congress Is Listening A Bit More”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/voters_think_congress_is_listening_a_bit_more

What has changed in the past two months that would cause the American voters to believe that congress is listening more?

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #317539

Z,

Attempting to discredit Stuart Butler’s testimony before Congress as not representative of the Heritage Foundation or that of a conservative is laughable. He has been a principal analyst and executive responsible for health care policy development for over 30 years for the Heritage Foundation, the leading conservative think tank in the US. If the executive responsible for health policy in the Heritage Foundation is not a credible conservative source, who is?

Where did you think that Mitt Romney got his ideas about individual mandates, insurance exchanges, etc.?

In recent years, it is true that many of conservative think tanks have backed away from the type of program implemented in Mass. as applicable to the nation as a whole. They defend their earlier advocacy on the grounds that they were simply advocating that the states experiment with a variety of alternatives (act as laboratories). Fair enough. However, it is clear though that the individual mandates originated from conservative proposals. I don’t recall any constitutional issues being raised until the recent federal health care reform.

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 7:14 PM
Comment #317541

Here’s a few more “FACTS” for Mr. Daugherty:

Monday, January 17, 2011

“Support for repeal of the national health care law passed last year remains steady, as most voters continue to believe the law will increase the federal budget deficit.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 55% of Likely Voters favor repeal of the health care law”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

“Republicans officially assumed control of the U.S. House of Representatives this month, and voters now trust the GOP more than Democrats on all 10 of the most important issues regularly surveyed by Rasmussen Reports including the economy, health care, taxes and national security.”

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

“Most voters still strongly feel that the health care reform law passed last year by Congress will cost more than projected.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform law will cost more than official estimate”

Friday, January 14, 2011

“Voters overwhelmingly want to see last year’s health care law changed, but there is substantial disagreement about how best to do it.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters want to change the law”


Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 7:16 PM
Comment #317542

Rich:

I don’t have to attempt to discredit Stuart Butler’s testimony before Congress as not representative of the Heritage Foundation; he said by his own words it was his opinion and not Heritage’s. Sorry, you lose.

This is nothing more than liberal talking points. As I said, name me a conservative politician who is in favor of National Health Care? This is the only relevant question, the rest is talking points and can be heard on the MSM.

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 7:22 PM
Comment #317543

Why oh Why?

Listening to everybody debate over health care is like listening to two kids try to explain to their parents why they don’t want to do something.

However, I challange reasonable adult or parent to say they would like to see health care denied to their family or children.

Now it would be great if years ago our ancestors would of had the foresight to realize how to guild a Pre-Paid System which by now would not require any American who’s family has lived here for over 50 years to pay for medical services. However, 150 years ago they were to busy trying to figure out how to put a Doctor and a hospital in every city, town, and village.

In fact, among those of us who are old enough to remember when Americans did not have 911 Services and had to day a half of a day to get to what they said passed as a hospital I wonder how many would like to return to those days?

Yet, here we stand complaining over the idea that every American should pay for our health and medical treament by purchasing health care insurance instead of trying to figure out how the Honeless and the guy living in the penthouse on 42nd street can have the same health and medical coverage enjoyed by the President of the United States of America.

Would we be better off if no one in America could go to a Doctor or a hospital unless they could pay the bill in full that day?

Would we be better off if we let people die in the streets because we were not sure they had the money to pay for any health or medical procedure or service even if they were injured by no fault of their own?

Will our children be better off if we allowed health insurance companies to only provide policies to those who never go to the doctor or need the hospital?

Will our children be better off if we did away health insurance altogether?

Yes, there are differences in the way Americans can deal with the increasing costs of health and medical procedures and services. From learning how our habits influence our health to learning what procedures work and don’t work. There are endless ways we can engage the current system which does not require you given up your coverage so someone with more money can have theirs.

Yet, just as those 150 years ago who thought it was impossible to have a Doctor in every town debated those who not only believed America could have a Doctor in every town, but a fully equipped hospital as well. Which side of the poll do you stand on?

For why it is possible to have an Individual Pre-Paid Health and Medical Care System in America. Do we deny our family and children that opportunity because we doubt ourselves or like our ancestors do we take a stand and work with our elected officials, doctors and medical staff, and even the insurance companies so that in the next 150 years Americans can look back and be proud that our generation was willing to set aside our doubt and fears so they can enjoy the luxury of knowing their generation has a health and medical care system which promotes Human Health over Human Illness?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 7:24 PM
Comment #317544

Citizens believing that HC Reform will increase the deficit, when it will reduce it or at worst be deficit neutral, are two wholly different things. Citizens tend to listen to the loudest voices, and shun reason/logic. Right now the loudest voices are also the most unreasoned and illogical…go figure. It is my hope that reason will out…sooner rather than later America will wake up to the facts, and tune out the clap-trap. If they don’t and repeal actully happens, America will come to late to regret it.

There are consequences to ‘winning’. The debt will shoot like a sky rocket if repeal goes through.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 19, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #317545

“Sorry Rich…”Z” beat me to it and did a great job.”

Z simply said that he didn’t believe the testimony was from a conservative. Apparently for Z, only conservatives he agrees with are actually conservatives.

Why don’t you give it a try. Were the proposals of the Republicans in 1993 unconstitutional? Was the program implemented in Mass. by a conservative governor and prominent Republican presidential aspirant, unconstitutional? Contrary to Zs statements, the Heritage Foundation was highly supportive of the Mass. plan. What changed?

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 7:27 PM
Comment #317546
Home owners and non-hone owners both can use the same tax form.

The same thing is currently the case in Massachusetts and will be the case nationwide in 2014.

When inputing the information the qualified home owner puts in a dollar amount that affects the tax he owes. The non home-owner puts a zero dollar amount which does not affect the tax he owes.

I don’t see how this difference in schematics matters. Today in Massachusetts and in the other 49 states in 2014, people with qualifying insurance will put a zero on one line of their tax forms. People who are defined as “unable to afford health care insurance” will also put a zero on that line of their tax forms. People without qualifying insurance who fail to meet the definition of “unable to afford health insurance” will put $695 on that line or they will put 2% of their income, whichever is higher. The number on that line, whether it is zero or 695 or 2% of income is added to the total taxes owed by the individual.

See Ezra Klein’s post for a better rundown of how the individual mandate works.

Warped writes; “…it is impossible for one to not participate in interstate commerce (or intrastate commerce in the case of Massachusetts’ health care reform law).”

Why would you equate that with being forced to buy a product?


If you are using a product or service, you are required to pay the provider of said product or service. What you are advocating is akin to driving up to the gas station, filling up one’s tank and driving away without paying.
I have been wondering if a liberal congress passed legislation calling for “Mandatory Speech”, meaning that all American’s would be forced by law to say something, would liberals on WB defend that as “Free Speech”?
This is ridiculous. Speech has none of the commercial implications health care does. Also, a law forcing people to speak would run afoul of the first amendment. Some religious beliefs cause people to take vows of silence. Also, the absence of speech can communicate just as much as its presence given the right context.

Z, I’ll respond to you after dinner.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 19, 2011 7:28 PM
Comment #317548

Henry, I am not certain I understand your question, if there is one.

So, I will describe medical care in my small farming community in Wisconsin in the 40’s and 50’s. We had one medical doctor and one dentist. Today, they have no doctor and no dentist. When any of us five children were sick enough for our parents to phone; Dr. Irvine would come to the house carrying in his little black bag all that was necessary to treat most illnesses.

I didn’t know any kids whose parents had insurance and mine had no insurance either. My dad would pay what he could and the remainder of the bill would be paid in a manner my father could afford. I never met anyone in our town who was refused treatment by the doctor.

The closest hospital was about 20 miles away and they accepted everyone needing care and charged what each could afford much the same as the doctor.

I know we can never return to those days and if given the choice of medical care I would choose that care available today.

There is something terribly wrong with our health care delivery system and that’s a fact, just as there is something terribly wrong with our education system. I have seen big governments answer to many social problems and have yet to find one that works well.

How about you Henry?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #317549

Rich again writes; “Why don’t you give it a try. Were the proposals of the Republicans in 1993 unconstitutional.”

Can you provide the Republican bill in the house or senate so I can read it? After that, I will give my opinion.

What I consider unconstitutional is not just an idea floating around, but law at this time. So, I can make a reasonable judgement as I know what it contains.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2011 7:56 PM
Comment #317550

Appreciate your willingness to look at past GOP proposals.

Here is a link that provides a summary of the 1993 bill by a co-sponsor as well as more detailed links to the 1993 GOP proposal including a chart comparing the 1993 vs. 2009 bills. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/Durenberger-1993-gop-bill-q-and-a.aspx

You might want to take a careful look at “Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.”

As for the Mitt Romney plan, wikipedia provides a very readable summary of the plan and its history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 8:40 PM
Comment #317552

Royal Flush,
Exactly! Our parentsm their parents, and so on and so forth (actually so back) have figured out how to get the health and medical care everybody need. And why that meant the Doctors and Hospitals did not always get paid the going rate, here we are wanting to declare holy war over th idea that President Obama and Congress is trying to do the same thing only with the health insurance companies involved.

And why I not wanting to get back into why we have the current health and nedical systen we do, I will say it has a lot to do with the fact that over the last several years we have gone from individuals paying for their own medical bills to insurance companies being asked to pick up the tab than what most people even want to think about.

For why we use to use alot of the extra money money in health care accounts to fund R&D, loan the money so towns could afford emergency vehicles, and improve health and medical services in general. During the 90’s if I remember right those finds started to be raided just like the pension funds in the 80’s were.

And why I am still trying to figure out eactly what took place in 00’s to justify health care premiums steadily increasing over the years, I do know that American Doctors and Hospitals took some hard shots when their payments started getting cut sometimes as much as 50% and 12 months later.

So why we may not the current health care reform act, repealling it is not the answer; however, lacking the proper eucation and tools to figure out what would be changed if we were just to make it so any health insurance policy had to pay the medical bill within 24 hours or how a health care insurance premium based on 6% of an individuals income could pay for doctor visits as well as hospital stays. And for some strange reason it is almost impossible to get the Havard grads to see how important it is to allow Americans to set aside 1-2% of our premiums so that somewhere down the road our families won’t have to worry if they will have to pay for Doctors and their Medical Staff to try and keep us healthy.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2011 9:03 PM
Comment #317553

Rich cannot name a conservative republican who supports NHC; neither can he name a HC bill that was put forth by republicans. Rich wants to know if Romney is a conservative; No, he’s a RINO and he does not represent conservaties. Rich is blowing smoke.

Henry said, “However, I challange reasonable adult or parent to say they would like to see health care denied to their family or children.”

Henry; it is and was against the law for a hospital to turn a sick person away, whether they had insurance or not, long before the obamacare bill. This has been the law for at least 25 years. So this crap about denying healthcare is nothing more than crap. Included in these laws is; the hospital cannot ask you if you are a legal citizen.

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 9:06 PM
Comment #317554

“No, he’s [Romney] a RINO and he does not represent conservaties.”

Well, good luck with your cleansing of the Republican Party. I can only hope that the appeal of the party will then become as narrow as its philosophical tolerance.

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 9:29 PM
Comment #317556

Well Rich, let’s see; how many House seats did the Republicans pick up, and how many of those seats were TP supported? And how many Senate seats did we pick up, and how many of those were TP supported? Oh, I believe we have a good start on cleansing the Republican Party. It’s a shame democrats have no control over what happens in the democrap party. Kent Conrad, ND Senate, another moderate democrat calls it quits. Looks like you guys will only represent the 20% of liberal voters pretty soon.

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 9:42 PM
Comment #317557

”..it is and was against the law for a hospital to turn a sick person away, whether they had insurance or not,”

Z, you should be aware that the law only requires that hospitals provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay not general medical care. Just because you are sick doesn’t mean that you can show up at any old hospital and get treated. You cannot get care for medical conditions that might be debilitating but don’t present an immediate life threatening condition. You need to have a stroke before you can get treated for high blood pressure. That is why this system is so absurd.

Posted by: Rich at January 19, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #317560

Rich, there is a hospital a few miles from my house. In the ER admitting there is a sign in Englis and in Spanish. It says, “we cannot ask you if you are a citizen of the US; if you cannot speak English, we will provide an interpreter; and if you do not have insurance, we cannot refuse to treat you”. It doesn’t say anything about how sick you are. This sign has been in the admitting room for at least 10 years. Twenty years ago, my daughter worked in the financial department of a hospital in Springfield, MO. They would not refuse medical aid to anyone. If they did not have insurance, the hospital would set up payments; if they were not able to make the payments, the hospital wrote off the balance. So, this continual crap coming from the left is nothing more than fearmongering and lies. The point of my response to Henry, is that, there has always been medical aid for people. Why do you think the ER’s are full of low income blacks and Mexicans? Have you been to an ER lately? They go there because they can, and this has been happening for many years.

Again, your liberal talking points are BS.

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 10:10 PM
Comment #317561

Z,

If Mitt decided to go Independent in 2012, how many conservative votes would go with him? Still want to disclaim him from being a conservative? If you want to depend on TeaPublicans to take over Congress and the Presidency…ha! ha!

Posted by: Marysdude at January 19, 2011 10:16 PM
Comment #317562

Marsdude said, “If Mitt, blah, blah, blah”

If frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butts everything they jump.

More Olbermann and Maddow talking points. I can hear this on MSNBC. I don’t deal in hypotheticals, come back when you want to talk serious.

Posted by: Z at January 19, 2011 10:25 PM
Comment #317563

Z,

Medical facilities write most of the losses due to such emergency service from their taxes, and charge paying customers more for their health care, in order to make up. Now what did you say about its cost? Those services become a part of our national health care costs against our GDP, and the main reason for the spiraling health care cost factors. And, it is one of the best reasons ommaginable to have a public option in our necessary reform program.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 19, 2011 10:25 PM
Comment #317564

Z,

Last chance. I don’t take lightly to trash talk. You are a troll and as such have no business here. Screw you. You wouldn’t know a serious discussion if it bit you on the ass.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 19, 2011 10:28 PM
Comment #317567

Here’s the full text of the Health Care Reform Law in Massachusetts. This plan received bipartisan support on Beacon Hill; Republican state senators such as Scott Brown of Tea Party fame voted for the bill.

Also, conservative Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said this:

But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance. Because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren’t insured, there’s no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it….I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.
source

As has already been noted, several Republicans sponsored bills with individual mandates as an alternative to Clinton’s 1994 proposal. Most notable of these is the bill created by Senator John Chafee.

Because my comment contains many links, I need to divide it up in order to get around the spam filter.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 19, 2011 11:29 PM
Comment #317570

The individual mandate is the brainchild of conservative economist, Mark Pauly of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
Here are a few examples of the history of the individual mandate as it was endorsed by conservatives including the Heritage Foundation, particularly with regard to Mitt Romney’s health care reform package in Massachusetts:

Mitt’s Fit

The Significance of Massachusetts Health Reform

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 19, 2011 11:34 PM
Comment #317573

Here are a few more links.

How the Maryland Health Plan is a Model for the Nation

The Heritage proposal goes much further, by repealing the tax deduction for health care benefits, and imposing an individual mandate, as well as expanding the tax credit to a wider income band. However, the Maryland Plan relies much more heavily on employers to participate through the requirement that all employers offer insurance as well as help finance the tax credit through the 4 percent payroll tax.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 19, 2011 11:38 PM
Comment #317576

Regarding polls, I think it’s dishonest to pick and choose one poll out of many. Why don’t you look here for a more comprehensive view. Although some polls show 50% of Americans supporting repeal of PPACA, whenever the pollster asks, “why?”, a good 15% of Americans usually respond “because it doesn’t go far enough” or something to the left of that. Every single provision of PPACA polls well on its own except for the individual mandate, which isn’t surprising. However, the individual mandate is the key that makes the rest of the law work, remove the mandate and all those popular provisions will come tumbling down.

Wow, that spam filter is unbelievable. Note to Stephen Daugherty, or the editor; please don’t release my original comment from the spam filter. They will only duplicate what I’ve already said and clutter the comments. I’ve already bypassed the spam filter by splitting my comment up in the interest of speeding up the discussion.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 19, 2011 11:43 PM
Comment #317577
U.S. manufacturing, viewed as a lost cause by many Americans, has begun creating more jobs than it eliminates for the first time in more than a decade.

Geez, what a job-killing administration we have.

z-
I make mistakes. But am I mistaken to say that everybody uses healthcare at some point, whether they want to or not? Nobody can abandon the issue of their health, the way they can walk away from a home or a mortgages, the way they can walk away from a car, the way they can walk away from a business.

You really can’t treat the competition for healthcare as an ordinary competition.

You talk about the ER, people using that. They refuse nobody, and for good reason. The results would be inhumane. But unfortunately, that’s not exactly a stellar substitute. It means people aren’t catching things early. They’re catching things when the pain and suffering forces them to wait in a ER waiting room. And what’s more, doing things this way costs more.

Solution? Require coverage for everybody, using subsidies, tax breaks and other methods to take care of the poor, tax breaks for small business workers, and others who don’t get healthcare. Require insurance providers in turn to turn nobody away.

A Hospital doesn’t just write something off altruistically. They make up the cost somewhere else. And that is why interstate commerce arguments come into play. Providers work across state lines, and their economic issues affect people without regards to state.

Now, you can dismiss things as liberal talking points, but for most of us, that’s no more a disproof than me railing at you for being a fascist pig. You’ve only jingoed up your fellow Republicans, and I’d only have jingoed up the left. The truths remain truths. The question is what they are.

When you stop trying to dance around trying to dent my credibility and goad me, maybe you can settle down and make an argument on actual facts, instead of simply providing polls and snarky political comments.

Otherwise, you’re actually kind of boring when it comes down to it. What am I to expect from you beyond “socialist liberal”, “liberal talking points”, and other such gems of partisan language?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2011 12:50 AM
Comment #317578

Careful dude, you’re liberal intolerance is showing.

Posted by: Z at January 20, 2011 12:55 AM
Comment #317580

Z,
Er’s do not treat your health! They treat your medical condition and that is by law only to stabilize you.

Have a heart attack and you might staty in the hospital a few days; however, once able to travelthe hospital is under obligation to send you to out patient. There you, if you can afford it, will see a Doctor who can oversee your health care. Otherwise, you are going to have to go to county services where Taxpayers pick up the bill.

However, your biggest problem is that hospitals to this day turn away those without insurance. For why Public Hospitals are by law required to treat everyone regardless citizenry, income, and background. Private Hospitals are not under such obligations. So why the hospital a few miles from your home takes everyone, when you have a heart attack and they are full. What’s the next nearest hospital that can treat you?

Now nation wide Americans pay about $60 billion dollars a year which profits no one. In fact, due to its nature it is one of the driving factors which keep health and medical cost going up every year. So in 10 years we can safely project that Amerians will have to pay $600 billion in additional health care costs, is this what you want to leave your children paying?

No Z, I am old enough to remember when we debated if hospitals ers should be forced to accept anyone off the streets. And why I will say much to my amazed local public hospitals have been rewarded well over the years because of the actions taken by our parents and grandparents. Faced with the same economic problems everyone else is, what happens to your kids when the hospital just a few miles away close their doors forevevr?

Because frankly, I do believe you are telling the Liberals that you want your children and others not to pay for insurance due to the fact they can get health care at hospitals. And why you are entitled to your own opinion. The next time you have an upset stomach go to the ER, wait around for about 5 hours, see the Doctor who will give you some pink stuff, and than be told to see your Doctor if you have a health problem. All for the price of a few thoudand dollars which you don’t have to pay unless you meed a good credit rating to get a job, a loan, or a place to stay.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 20, 2011 4:13 AM
Comment #317582

I am intolerant. I am incensed by contrived idiocy and/or by trolls. I disregard that intolerance being labeled ‘liberal’, as it belongs strictly to me as an individual, not to my political leanings. I felt the same way when I was a Republican.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 20, 2011 6:08 AM
Comment #317584

I find it humorous that the conservatives pretend like they don’t use the Constitution as a convenience when it serves their narrow purposes and a piece of toilet paper when it does not. We just went through 8 years of illegal wiretapping, torture, illegal wars, and denying marriage rights to everyone - which part of the Constitution says that the Bill of Rights may be ignored when you are gripped by fear or intolerance? Or is the 2nd Ammendment the only one that matters the others weren’t meant to be serious? The Dems have done their fair share of Constitution shredding too but it is ludicrous to think that the GOP hasn’t done it too.

What I also find humorous is that the GOP in the House have decided to spend a whole day of this nonsense to pass a bill that they admit will never become law. I thought these guys cared about spending. How much of our money was wasted in this folly? Couldn’t they find something useful to do with their time especially since we are paying for it? If these guys were my employees I would have told them that if they want to waste time like this they can go without pay. When does fiscal conservative become part of their jobs? When do they actually do something productive with the time they have been paid for?

I am not a big fan of one party rule even when it’s my party that has power. The GOP is playing right into Obama’s hand by continuing to act like a two-year-old by doing this stuff. Get to work, work with each other, find real solutions to real problems or they’ll be the ones looking for jobs in two years.

One more thing, I am totally fed up with pols thinking that anything in our politics is in any way, shape, or form akin to Nazi Germany. This jackass Rep Steve Cohen (D) did this in talking about GOP opposition to the health care bill. It was way out of line and diminishes the suffering under the hands of real Nazis.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/dem_rep_no_apology_for_saying.html

Posted by: tcsned at January 20, 2011 8:25 AM
Comment #317586

Stephen said:

“Otherwise, you’re actually kind of boring when it comes down to it. What am I to expect from you beyond “socialist liberal”, “liberal talking points”, and other such gems of partisan language?”

Boring? Then why do you respond?
Don’t like the handle placed on the left? Perhaps you would rather be called a “Progressive”? The word progressive does not do justice to what the left really is; so I would prefer “Socialist Liberal”. If you have a personal problem with that, then I expect to see you complaining about terms like “teabagger”, “wingnut”, “Faux”, etc. The word “Progressive” sounds like you want to better humanity, but in reality a progressive agenda moves us toward a third world status.

Marysdude, please don’t say you used to be a republican; it gives republicans a bad name. Just be proud to call yourself a liberal.

Tcsned, I agree with you on Cohen. I also find it amusing that just a little over a week ago, the left was screaming that the murders in AZ where the result of hate speech from the right. Of course, we now know this murderer had nothing to do with the right. But, now we hear this type of talk from a congressman.

I would also like to clarify another point I have been making for some time, and that is, liberal writers on WB simply repeat liberal talking points. On almost every post on WB, when the left gets backed into a corner, they always come out with the “Nazi”, “Goebbel’s” statements. It wouldn’t be hard to do an archive study to find this out. So who is the father of these statements, is it the democrat political machine, the MSM, or is it the liberal writers on WB? Doesn’t really matter, because no matter who started it, it becomes a liberal talking point. It is significant that a seated congressman would make a statement like this from the floor of the House. I commend you tcsned for your outrage, are there any more liberals in WB land who are also outraged?

Posted by: Z at January 20, 2011 9:57 AM
Comment #317587

We are all outraged and embarrassed by him, you idiot.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 20, 2011 10:02 AM
Comment #317590

“Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” -Colossians 3:13

Posted by: womanmarine at January 20, 2011 10:34 AM
Comment #317592

Z,

I agree that Cohen’s remarks are out of place. Especially in light of what happened in AZ recently.

Why don’t you take a minute to stop spouting right wing talking points and address the points that we have brought up challenging the contention that the individual mandate violates the Constitution. Conservatives praised the individual mandate throughout the 1990s and into 2006 when Massachusetts passed its health care reform law. Then when Democrats propose the same thing 5 years later, everyone on the right does an about-face and now opposes it. How is the individual mandate in PPACA any different than the numerous other mandates that already exist?

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 20, 2011 10:42 AM
Comment #317594

Z - like I said, Cohen’s comments were way out of line. It’s easy to agree when it’s someone from the opposition that says something stupid - it’s a lot harder when it’s someone from your side. How do you feel about Sarah Palin’s poor choice of words calling what was said about her, “blood libel?” or those that said the health care bill was going to usher in the age of death panels?

If this country is ever going to have a functional government that crap has got to go. We have just been through 2 years of the GOP opposing absolutely everything Obama tried to do, record filibusters, outrageous language, outrageous behavior, and voting against things they had either supported or proposed in the past just because it was now being proposed by Obama. If my 2 year-old acted like they have he would be sitting in the corner until he apologized.

Posted by: tcsned at January 20, 2011 10:50 AM
Comment #317602

Warped Reality writes; “…address the points that we have brought up challenging the contention that the individual mandate violates the Constitution.”

For me Warped, I believe I have said all that I can regarding why I believe it is unconstitutional to force anyone to purchase a product. I am content that 26 states agree with my position and are suing the federal government. The sensible thing for me now is to wait in anticipation to see how this plays out in our third branch of government.

I really don’t care if the democrats modeled their HC bill after ideas floating around in Republican minds or not. As a conservative I follow my political philosophy and understanding of the constitution rather than any political party or individual.

Some years ago my PSA levels were high and getting higher. My physician referred me to a urologists. Numerous DRE’s, showing no deformation or unusual characteristics in my prostate were not sufficient as the specialist, using the usual medical language, “If it was me I would have the procedure done” continued to suggest I have a biopsy done.

Biopsy’s are painful and not without medical risk. I had no insurance and paid for the first one out of pocket. The biopsy showed no unusual cell activity. A year later, as my PSA levels continued to rise I was convinced to have another biopsy performed. This time I had Medicare and a Medsup. Same results, nothing unusual.

It was only after two biopsy’s that the specialists offered another possibility for the rising PSA levels. He suggested that if the PSA continued to rise perhaps I could have a low grade persistent infection. About a month later I got pneumonia and my regular physician gave me a round of antibiotics.

Amazingly (not really) my next blood draw and analysis showed my PSA levels were normal and continue to be normal with blood work again performed just a month ago.

The point of my story is that this specialist, and I suspect this practice is widespread, performed the most expensive and intrusive procedure possible for my symptoms rather than the least expensive and least invasive procedure possible.

The first biopsy, which I paid for out of my own pocket, was decided upon by me mostly out of the fear instilled in me by the specialist. The second biopsy was easier to swallow because I was now on Medicare with a Medsup.

Fear and the idea that someone else is footing the bills are powerful motivation. I consider myself an informed and intelligent patient regarding medical issues. Yet, I was drawn into this medical web that has, and continues, to separate citizens from their money regardless of what entity is writing the checks.

I don’t believe the majority of Americans, given the incentive (fear or someone else writing the check) to have expensive procedures, will resist any more than I did and with this HC bill our national health care costs will balloon, not reduce. Add in the fact that the coverage provided in employee and government plans will include whatever those making the decisions decide.

Plans will include coverage for benefits whether wanted or not by the insured. We see lobbyists at work all the time, in every way, in government right now. It will be no different with national health care.

Just as Social Security and Medicare have grown beyond all imagination of what was originally intended, so will NHC. It would be an aberration if it didn’t.

My experience informs me that when government provides, it simply costs more.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 11:48 AM
Comment #317605

Royal Flush,
When the government provides things they are by law not allowed to make a profit. And while it is true things uasually cost more. Is it because the supplier charges the government more instead of cutting the cost and writting off the difference to cover their taxes?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 20, 2011 12:36 PM
Comment #317606

Henry that is an excellent question and one on which I hope many on WB will comment. I will need a little time to gather and assemble my thoughts on this. Thanks for the question.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 12:58 PM
Comment #317608

For those who care, here’s another article revealing how big government programs are failing.

Social Insecurity: Inside the “Trust Fund” Illusion

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/retirement/social-security-trust-fund-illusion-debt-deficit-bonds-borrow/19806199/

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 1:25 PM
Comment #317613

z-
You’re outraged? My people have been called Commies, Nazis, al-Qaeda sympathizers, eager potential converts to radical Islam, and pretty much everything else nasty you could think of, and your people are outraged at a Nazi comparison, however oblique?

I’ve heard your people talk about using my folks for target practice. I’ve heard you folks essentially say that we’re going to destroy our Democracy, bring tyranny.

By bringing healthcare reform. What most Democratically elected modern European countries have. Countries, I might add, which are nowhere near depraved dictatorship.

Now, people like me have talked about warrantless wiretaps, breaches of habeas corpus, and other such signs of a less than accountable government at work. We’ve talked about excutive powergrabs, with White House lawyers justifying putting immense power under the President’s control, based on a legal theory known as the unitary executive.

But we talk about that with real, actual breaches of civil liberties, and real memos from real White House lawyers.

Your people have to make stuff up in order to make Obama look as bad as Bush. And, in fact, that’s probably the main reason it’s being done. Your people don’t want to face the incredible amount of harm that Bush and his policies did to the Republicans. You don’t want to face that your policies have actually been tried out now, and found wanting. You want to keep power, maintain the status quo.

And if you have to tell gullible people that Obama, who won an election fair and square by a large margin that he wasn’t born in America, if you have to allege that ACORN rigged the election, if you have to tell people that FEMA is setting up death camps for conservatives, that Healthcare Reform will turn America into a police state, that’s what you have to do, given the alternative.

The alternative being that the Republicans have to face what a really lousy choice, and lousy investment Bush, the GOP Congress, and all their policies were.

So, the fantasy is created, and pushed to its fullest extent. Why? Because nothing less than the biggest of lies will cover for just how much the GOP screwed things up.

But you know something? It was never really the hatred of Bush that motivated me. Personally, I don’t see him as that bad of a guy. He’s not Hitler. But what he is, is a man who not only ran on an impractical kind of political expedience, he addicted his party to it, in the course of leading them to apologize for his screw-ups.

And folks like Glenn Beck, >who told his viewers that they were going to have to shoot the other side in the head, have been carrying on the carrying on ever since.

Want my honest opinion? Most people on the right are normal, decent people, as most people on the left are. Both sides can change their personalities a little when the politics comes into play, but most people don’t want to shoot or hurt anybody in real life.

But that’s simply talking in averages. In truth, people have all different kinds of personalities, and all can be caught up in something greater than themselves, for good or evil, when their leaders begin to put the pressure on.

You tell a bunch of good people of good conscience that they are going to lose their freedoms, that violent action might be necessary to preserve them, that those who dissent from them are active traitors, and you create an environment where those who lack sanity, or lack perspective don’t have the benefit of folks who can or will put the brakes on their paranoia and fear, their anger and rage.

Worse, sometimes even normal people go wrong.

Look at the Civil War. Was that simply just mentally disturbed people at work? No.

When I dissented against Bush, I made damn certain that people knew that from my point of view, only peaceful, democratic change was acceptable. I was proud to create change through the voting booth. I was proud to say that there were things I believed in, and to give those, and not merely fear about what the other side would do as cause for my positions.

To me, what the Republicans and Tea Partiers are doing is an aberration, a travesty. Worse, they are playing upon the kind of paranoia and fear that leads governments like ours towards the darkness of true tyranny.

Divisive politics like yours is addictive. When politicians go down that route, they build up followings that depend on there being an enemy. Compromise becomes less and less desirable, hatred becomes concentrated, the scapegoats get closer and closer to being legitimate targets, and folks like you end up working overtime trying to avoid the loss of reputation that follows from such behavior, from the blow-ups and bad scenes that come of it.

In rationalizing something, you grow apart from those who won’t rationalize it, even if you don’t intend to. And through all that develops the kind of social turmoil that can rip a country apart.

I don’t want that. I’ve known enough conservatives personally to know that most aren’t bad people. But I’ve seen the change in folks as they get further and further into the tunnel of the divisive politics to know that even reasonable people can fall prey.

That, by the way, is why I will engage people like you, because I believe the madness has to be fought, argued and debated against. I don’t have faith that it will simply go away if I ignore it. I believe it must be confronted and refuted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2011 3:44 PM
Comment #317614

Mr. Daugherty writes; “To me, what the Republicans and Tea Partiers are doing is an aberration, a travesty. Worse, they are playing upon the kind of paranoia and fear that leads governments like ours towards the darkness of true tyranny.”

What a blatant outrageous statement from Mr. Facts and Reason. I challenge him to back up his statement that mainstream Republican political thought and Tea Party goals are in any way promoting or leading this county into tyranny. Apparently disagreeing with the leading liberal on WB is proof enough of bad intentions.

Daugherty’s spiel can be summed up with a listing his most egregious comments…

1) nothing less than the biggest of lies will cover for just how much the GOP screwed things up

2) you create an environment where those who lack sanity, or lack perspective don’t have the benefit of folks who can or will put the brakes on their paranoia and fear, their anger and rage.

3) Divisive politics like yours is addictive

4) followings that depend on there being an enemy

5) hatred becomes concentrated

6) because I believe the madness has to be fought

Since the dems lost the house in November the liberals have become more virulent. I can find slobber from Daugherty’s mentally disordered brain all over his comments. He should learn to type with his mouth shut as his comments now sound rabid and might be contagious.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #317617
For me Warped, I believe I have said all that I can regarding why I believe it is unconstitutional to force anyone to purchase a product.

Fair Enough, but I still remind you that the government has been forcing people to buy products for the past 222.5 years. This is nothing new. Nevertheless, the Left has offered to assuage the concerns of the Right by making a surgical correction to the existing law to let people opt out by signing a waiver that bars them from participating in the law’s benefit for a set time period. What are your thoughts on such a proposal?

I am content that 26 states agree with my position and are suing the federal government. The sensible thing for me now is to wait in anticipation to see how this plays out in our third branch of government.
Unfortunately, this issue has become highly politicized, so the fact that these states are doing this doesn’t mean much to me. We already know how eight of the nine supreme court justices will vote on this issue. The only unknown is what Anthony Kennedy thinks, which will be revealed in the coming months. In any case, even if Justice Kennedy does agree with Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito it will not strike down PPACA. As I already said, there are many ideas for patches that will enable people to choose to opt out if they are willing to sacrifice the law’s benefits; implementing these changes would completely undermine the arguments currently presented by the Right.

Regarding your story, you certainly have hit the nail on the head when it comes to why our costs are spiraling out of control. When somebody else is paying, doctors and patients have no incentive to limit costs. Absent rationing handed down by some higher authority (which would be a horrific affront to personal liberty), the only solution is to make the doctor and patient shoulder more of the decisions respecting cost. Fortunately, the PPACA does exactly that. If you were paying out of pocket, I’m sure you’d think long and hard about whether a second biopsy is worth it. Also, I’m sure that your specialist would think twice before asking you to pay for one. Under PPACA, once the exchanges are set up in 2014 people will begin to adjust to the new system. Later, the government will begin taxing so-called “cadillac insurance plans”, which will remove the government subsidy these plans currently obtain via favorable tax treatment. If this goes well, we will be able to lower the bar and other employer sponsored health plans, gradually eroding the special relationship they enjoy in our tax code. Eventually, most people will discover it financial advantageous to shop on the exchange instead of using their employer’s plan. Most workers will probably negotiate an increase in wages to compensate for the end of health benefits. Now that the link between employers and health insurance is severed, the free market will truly open up. People will be able to shop across state lines to find the health care plan that fits them and insurers will be forced to cater to their customers, which will be patients rather than corporate HR departments. Because people will have a much closer financial relationship to their health care decisions, those decisions will hopefully be done in a much more informed manner.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 20, 2011 5:14 PM
Comment #317618

WW, you first: name the Bill that was introduced in the House or Senate, by Republicans, which called for individual mandate? Anything else is just smoke…

Tcsned, as for Sarah Palin’s comments; since you asked, I will tell – I have no problem with “blood libel” and I happen to agree with her on the death panels. You asked and I answered. Of course, I AM and conservative and not afraid to identify myself as one.

“If my 2 year-old acted like they have he would be sitting in the corner until he apologized.”

Come now; I just listened to hours of debate, where the democrats cried and boohooed about how unfair the republicans were, and how they wanted to kill old people and children (shame they don’t feel the same way about the unborn child), and how they brought one example after another (with pictures) of someone they know would will DIE without obamacare, boo hoo, boo hoo. And who acts childish. The left has been pulling this crap for years; “they’re going to take away you SS seniors”, I think the voters are wising up to your tricks.

Royal said, “I really don’t care if the democrats modeled their HC bill after ideas floating around in Republican minds or not. As a conservative I follow my political philosophy and understanding of the constitution rather than any political party or individual.”

Royal, you are speaking to deaf ears. They can’t comprehend that individuals have the ability to think outside of the box. The socialist liberals love to try to identify conservatives as a flock of sheep, and then turn around and get mad when we try to explain we don’t all believe the same. A good example is earlier, when they tried to convince us that a Mass. Republican (Romney) is a TP conservative. No, he’s a RINO and not a TP conservative.

On Henry’s point, “When the government provides things they are by law not allowed to make a profit.”

Maybe so, but that hasn’t stopped government from taking SS money and using it on social programs, has it? This whole thing about obamacare is nothing more than an attempt to create another slush fund for their pet projects, with no thought given to what will be done when it goes bust after a number of years. You see, a politician only care about the here and now, what happens after they have retired does not concern them. Hence, we’re closing in on 15 Trillion in debt.

Thank you Royal for answering Mr. Daugherty, I personally tuned him out after reading the first verse:

“z-
You’re outraged? My people have been called Commies, Nazis, al-Qaeda sympathizers, eager potential converts to radical Islam, and pretty much everything else nasty you could think of, and your people are outraged at a Nazi comparison, however oblique?”

Personally, I think he is loosing it…

Posted by: Z at January 20, 2011 5:37 PM
Comment #317619

Royal Flush,
Although Stephen may be ranting a little bit to much over issues that Z has no control over, I do believe he soes make one real good point. For even President Bush got called a trader by the Right when he agreed to bailout Americas’ Financial Institutions did he not?

In fact, wasn’t it at that time the Tea Party turned on the Republican Party. For they dared anybody who wasn’t for allowing the market to decide for itself on what should happen even though they didn’t understand what happened was done by the Market.

Yes Palin, herself is guilty of calling for violence against at the time Candidate Obama to the point her running mate had to step in and protect his run for President. And isn’t it true that Palin said Health Care Reform had Death Panels when it was revealed that End of the Life Counseling would be made available.

However, the biggest show of Ignorance IMHO is when Rush and Hannity turned against supporting our troops in Afgan and Iraq. For what was once an inmoveable rock in their saily rants against the Liberals quickly turned to siding with them and calling for the end to the wars.

So why Stephen and Z rant with each other over things which they cannot control, I want to thank you for your post on Social Security. For why you will have to go to Itheconsumer.com to see what I wrote this afternoon on the subject. I do believe with a little bit of political immagination we can find solutions benefital to all.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 20, 2011 5:48 PM
Comment #317620

Warped Reality writes; “the Left has offered to assuage the concerns of the Right by making a surgical correction to the existing law to let people opt out by signing a waiver that bars them from participating in the law’s benefit for a set time period.”

That is a very generous concession from the left and I admire their desire to work to save the HC legislation they worked so hard to pass. It does make me wonder though, how will the CBO score the current legislation if folks can opt out. Will it not make what remains prohibitively expensive? And, a future congress could reinstate that provision easily. I recall the beginnings of SS and Medicare were modest and yet…look at them now. I know, I am very cautious, but could you really blame me for being so?

And, even though some will opt out by signing a waiver, should they need medical care they will still receive it, don’t you think?

Warped also writes; “Unfortunately, this issue has become highly politicized, so the fact that these states are doing this doesn’t mean much to me.”

I didn’t bother to do any research but I wonder how often over half the states have sued the federal government in unison on the same legal issue. I would guess it is rather rare and if that is true, it is a big deal.

Warped, your explanation of how the HC legislation might work in coming years is very enticing. And, it is based upon many assumptions that rarely occur in the real world. I won’t attempt to pick apart your rosey scenerio but I have found that in the past these huge government entitlement programs seldom, if ever, work out the way intended.

Thanks for giving me some positive things to think about.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 5:53 PM
Comment #317621
WW, you first: name the Bill that was introduced in the House or Senate, by Republicans, which called for individual mandate? Anything else is just smoke…
Already done; just click on John Chaffee’s name.
A good example is earlier, when they tried to convince us that a Mass. Republican (Romney) is a TP conservative. No, he’s a RINO and not a TP conservative.

What’s your opinion of Scott Brown?

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 20, 2011 5:53 PM
Comment #317622

Warped, the SC may not strike it down, but obamacare will become neutered. Will we then begin to call the SC Justices right wingnuts and TP conservatives?

Your next paragraph only proves you live in a fantasy world. If this is your conclusion, it is all supposition. If, if, if, maybe, maybe, maybe, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Is the government going to tax union Cadillac insurance plans? No. Are they going to tax Fed and State Cadillac insurance plans? No. How many are already exempt?

“If this goes well, we will be able to lower the bar and other employer sponsored health plans, gradually eroding the special relationship they enjoy in our tax code. Eventually, most people will discover it financial advantageous to shop on the exchange instead of using their employer’s plan. Most workers will probably negotiate an increase in wages to compensate for the end of health benefits. Now that the link between employers and health insurance is severed, the free market will truly open up. People will be able to shop across state lines to find the health care plan that fits them and insurers will be forced to cater to their customers, which will be patients rather than corporate HR departments. Because people will have a much closer financial relationship to their health care decisions, those decisions will hopefully be done in a much more informed manner.”

Warped, I hate to call this BS, because I like you, but you are ill-informed and living in a liberal fantasy world. Use your brain and think about what you have said.


Posted by: Z at January 20, 2011 5:56 PM
Comment #317623

Z said: “WW, you first: name the Bill that was introduced in the House or Senate, by Republicans, which called for individual mandate? Anything else is just smoke…”

There is no sense in arguing with you. Upon Royal Flush’s request I gave him a link to the bill introduced by Republicans in 1993. Warped has provided a barrage of links to GOP bills and conservative think tanks providing support for the concept of an individual mandate, insurance exchanges, prohibitions against pre-existing condition exclusions, etc.

Neither you nor Royal Flush have had the courtesy to answer the basic question posed by Mr. Dougherty at the beginning of this thread: “So, the question is, were the Republicans for defying the constitution before they were against it?”

So, who’s blowing smoke?

Posted by: Rich at January 20, 2011 6:01 PM
Comment #317624

Royal, this is wierd, we are really thinking alike.

Warped; Scott Brown - RINO; John Chaffee - Worse than a RINO/ socialist liberal who called himself a RINO. So his Bill don’t mean crap. If you will look at my earlier posts, I asked for the name of a conservative republican who supported universal health care. How much conservative support did Chaffee get?

Posted by: Z at January 20, 2011 6:06 PM
Comment #317626

Royal Flush,

I apologize for stating that you did not have the courtesy to respond to the question as to why Republicans once thought an individual mandate was constitutional but now oppose it as unconstitutional. You did have the courtesy to acknowledge the clear facts.

I must say, however, that your lack of any explanation for the flip speaks volumes. Saying that you don’t care what bills or policy proposals were presented in the past by the GOP simply avoids the question.

Posted by: Rich at January 20, 2011 6:17 PM
Comment #317628

Warped Reality I went to the link you provided on the John Chafee health care bill introduced in 1993. Sorry, but after reading for a half hour I decided it wasn’t worth the effort since 17 years have passed and much has changed. To give you an intelligent opinion of the merits of this bill would take me days, if not weeks. I try not to be lazy in my writing but I guess I failed here.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #317629

Z,
You say “boo hoo” to those who ask for help; however, why doesn’t Conservatives support a Pre-Paid Health and Medical Care System” in America? Why not require business cut all the lopeholes which has allowed multi-trillion of dollars be wrote off over the years? What about making the Conservatives pay for the two wars and Pharm Bill they put on the Public Credit Card? But the biggest one of all is why didn’t the Conservatives support ending the Bush Tax Cuts especially now that we have no surplus?

Yes, it is easy to be against anything when you believe that it can’t possinle harm you; however, let someone be denied health services for TB because they do not not have a job which pays enough for health care insurance and infect one of your family members and we will see who crys Boo Hoo.

No, the conservatives can no longer claim they put a value on life when over the last 40 years they have done nothing to help support life. For from denying higher wages to not wanting others to be able to enjoy a better life, I can personally tell them they are wrong about how they view President Reagans Trickldown Economic Theory.

For if the goal is to get as rich as you can as quick as you can than you would understand why it is important to teach every child why becoming wealthy is so important. However, what has the Republicans done on that front for the last 40 years?

No, it is to easy to list the fact that Republicans believing in a Finite World has lost out on some of the greatest returns known to Man. Nonetheless, as I have ask Conservatives in the past and probably will continue to ask them in the future. “If I give you 100,000 customers that are economically viable and financially independent enough to purchade your product, but take the resy of the world and work with them so they are able to invest in buying my product. Which one of us at the end of the day will make more profit?”

Funny how the political party who started out freeing the slaves have become slaves themselves to the Old Ways which lead to slavery in the first place.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 20, 2011 6:35 PM
Comment #317630

Henry wrote; “However, the biggest show of Ignorance IMHO is when Rush and Hannity turned against supporting our troops in Afgan and Iraq.”

Henry, can you provide me with a link to the transcript. I am not a regular on those programs. I have heard that Hannity raises a lot of money each year in public shows most of which directly benefits our military personnel.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #317631

“I went to the link you provided on the John Chafee health care bill introduced in 1993. Sorry, but after reading for a half hour I decided it wasn’t worth the effort since 17 years have passed and much has changed.”

Go to the link that I gave you from a Kaiser Foundation publication providing summaries of the Chafee 1993 bill as well as a comparison to the new Health Care Bill. It is simple and easy. It will take about ten minutes. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/Durenberger-1993-gop-bill-q-and-a.aspx

As I said before, you might want to take a look at: “Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.”


Posted by: Rich at January 20, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #317633

RF,
I appreciate your comments, thank you for sharing your perspective.

It does make me wonder though, how will the CBO score the current legislation if folks can opt out. Will it not make what remains prohibitively expensive?

While my crystal ball isn’t perfect, I don’t think the CBO would score the bill differently if the people who opt out don’t receive any of the benefits such as protection from preexisting conditions and rescissions.

And, even though some will opt out by signing a waiver, should they need medical care they will still receive it, don’t you think?
This is precisely why a waiver was not included in the original bill. I don’t know if Americans have the will to let the fools who sign the waiver to suffer when their poor decisions bite them in the butt.
I didn’t bother to do any research but I wonder how often over half the states have sued the federal government in unison on the same legal issue. I would guess it is rather rare and if that is true, it is a big deal.

I haven’t done any research, but I know a similar number of states joined Martha Coakley (Massachusetts’ AG) when she sued the EPA over their refusal to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act during the Bush era.

Z,
John Chafee’s bill was cosponsored by the following GOP senators:
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 11/22/1993
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 11/22/1993
Sen Boren, David L. [OK] - 5/17/1994
Sen Cohen, William S. [ME] - 11/22/1993
Sen Danforth, John C. [MO] - 11/22/1993
Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] - 11/22/1993
Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 11/22/1993
Sen Durenberger, Dave [MN] - 11/22/1993
Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/22/1993
Sen Gorton, Slade [WA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 11/22/1993
Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR] - 11/22/1993
Sen Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [KS] - 11/22/1993
Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE] - 5/17/1994
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 11/22/1993
Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY] - 11/22/1993
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 11/22/1993
Sen Warner, John [VA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Brown, Hank [CO] - 11/22/1993(withdrawn - 10/4/1994)

Are these people all RINOs too? Remember we are talking about John Chafee, not Lincoln Chafee, his son who is the current independent Governor of Rhode Island.

Is the government going to tax union Cadillac insurance plans? No. Are they going to tax Fed and State Cadillac insurance plans? No. How many are already exempt?
Unless PPACA is repealed, those insurance plans will be taxed in 2018. I was unhappy when the Democrats pushed the date back from 2014, but at least it will ultimately come to pass.

Regarding the rest of your comments. You may call what I write BS, but I am confident in its veracity. We’ll have to wait and see how things play out. Hopefully, the GOP won’t unilaterally interfere too much with the implementation of PPACA, that way we can judge the law’s merits objectively.

PS Royal Flush, don’t fret about not reading the ‘93 bill. That bill has been dead for 17 years and won’t become law. The PPACA is what you and I should be paying our attention too.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 20, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #317634

Henry writes; “What about making the Conservatives pay for the two wars and Pharm Bill they put on the Public Credit Card.”

I just heard on the radio news a snippet of Speaker Boehner talking about cutting $2+ trillion from the federal government expenditures over the next 10 years. Henry, that sound like a good down payment on the wars and pharm bill you speak of.

Henry also writes; “the conservatives can no longer claim they put a value on life when over the last 40 years they have done nothing to help support life.”

Not true Henry. One of the primary goals of conservatives is to end all abortions for “convenience”. You will have a difficult time not accepting that an embryo is alive. We have single-cell organisms in this world that are considered life.

Henry, I know you exaggerate when you say conservatives have done nothing in the last 40 years to support life. Over this time span conservative legislators have supported and voted for much spending for those in poverty.

Henry also writes; “Funny how the political party who started out freeing the slaves have become slaves themselves to the Old Ways which lead to slavery in the first place.”

I don’t find that comment funny at all Henry because it is simply not true. That conservatives respect, honor, cherish, and try to follow our Constitution should be praised, not thrashed. This is not slavish, but the action of those who believe that by following the Constitution, making changes by amendment where necessary, we will retain our democratic Republic for our posterity.

Do you not believe that Henry?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 7:03 PM
Comment #317636

BTW (by the way) Henry, your comments are becoming easier for me to read. I don’t know if your writing has improved or my reading has improved. Now, most of the time I can understand what you are saying and that’s a good thing. See, we can improve ourselves if we try. I value the comments of all (well, to be honest, there is one exception) who write here and I want to be certain that I understand what they are saying.

Any successful debate hinges upon understanding.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 7:10 PM
Comment #317637

Royal Flush,
Google “hannity under investigation for supporting troops scam” and pick which one you want to read. For while I will not say he broke the law, from what I have been able to find on the subject he does to far into saying his program supports the troops.

And for Rusn, that’s to easy and would cut into my supper. However, look at his words when Bush was President and when President obama took over as CC. Clearly there is a difference.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 20, 2011 7:20 PM
Comment #317638

Z,
My apologies, the list of cosponsors of Chafee’s bill that I shared earlier contains both Democrats and Republicans, while I had contended that it contained just Republicans.
However, there are many conservatives in that list, so the issue brought up by several left-wing commentators remains.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 20, 2011 7:22 PM
Comment #317639

RF,

Modern conservatives are not believers in the Constitution, nor do they love, honor or obey it. They love the ‘word’ Constitution, but the only parts they really believe in are those that support their current agenda. As that agenda changes, so do the parts of the Constitution that are acceptable to them.

My belief about the Constitution if it were presented for vote today:

1. Democrats would vote for it with only the slavery issue crossed out, and the Second Amendment would be clarified so that everyone would understand its meaning and intent.

2. TeaPublicans would repeal it and write their own.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 20, 2011 7:24 PM
Comment #317640

Marysdude, you’re entitled to your opinion no matter how jaundiced.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 7:44 PM
Comment #317641

Royal Flush,
Talking about cutting money and making the cuts into law are two different beast. Sorry, Boehner has said so many thing before that I won’t believe him until I see the deed done. Besides, %2 trillion over ten years don’t even come near the cost to America that the two unfunded wars and Pharm Bill has cost us. Now, make it $2 trillion every year for 10 years and we are on the road to something new.

As far as supporting life, no the republicans for the last 40 years have done more to harm life than help it. For why you cam say they supported programs that helped poverty, but what was those programs and how were they designed to undermine life.

Point in case: Workfare was a republican program; however, instead of designing the program so that those using it could actually become economically viable and financially independent the republicans elected to cut them out of the program even before the people became financially stable thus almost making it impossible for anyone to go from welfare to the working class.

Yes, republicans have been mislead by their leaders into believing the Democratic Republic which we are founded upon means Labor and Management; however, take that argument one step forward and let’s debate between the Have and Have Not’s. For why I am sure you are good at your job, but a job it is and the fact you need help providing the rest of the things your family needs means you are dependent on the Republic. However, that does not mean you belittle others in their job or consider that your job has nothing to do with the Whole of the Common Good. For it is what we share as a family, a community, and a nation which makes up our Democratic duties.

Yet, today all we hear from republican pundits is that the democrats want a government where everybody depends on it and the republicans want a country were they can do anything they want. So which one do you believe in?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 20, 2011 7:44 PM
Comment #317642


Marysdude, trolling???

Posted by: Z at January 20, 2011 7:54 PM
Comment #317643

Henry writes; “Sorry, Boehner has said so many thing before that I won’t believe him until I see the deed done.”

Henry, he is the speaker of the house and has great influence on the agenda and what legislation will be considered. He would be a fool to announce in public something for which he has no intention of bringing to the floor.

And, he is just one vote out of 465 so he will need considerable support.

Henry…perhaps $2 trillion over 10 years is “chump change” to you, but I assure you that is a huge sum of money. I have advocated before on WB that it would be a great idea for all bills and legislative discussion concerning money to be stated in million of dollars rather than billions and trillions. Most folks can imagine a million dollars but most can’t fathom the bigger denominations.

Thus, $2 trillion becomes 2,000,000 million.

I won’t comment on the rest of your post as it is simply gibberish.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2011 8:06 PM
Comment #317644

“My apologies, the list of cosponsors of Chafee’s bill that I shared earlier contains both Democrats and Republicans,”

There were nineteen Republican sponsors and two Democrats.

Posted by: Rich at January 20, 2011 8:07 PM
Comment #317646

I find it foolish to discuss a politics of 18 years ago. Is this the best you can do? Some of these are dead, voted out, or have changed parties. Some were RINO’s before the word was used. If we are going to talk about something that took place 18 years ago, why don’t we talk about the national debt at that time. In fact, Warped was probably in diapers at that time.

Heck, let’s just go back to the 1860’s. That’s only 150 years ago, when democrats voted to support slavery and republicans voted to free the slaves.

Foolish, isn’t it?

Posted by: Z at January 20, 2011 8:16 PM
Comment #317647

Yeah, I saw Bob Kerrey’s name and rushed the apology without doing any research. In any case, thank you Rich for determining the political party of all those names.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 20, 2011 8:20 PM
Comment #317651

Royal Flush,
Like you said Boehner is only one man one vote, so why he can say anything he likes tthe fact sttill remains that he must get the support of the House, the Senate, and the President before the first dime is saved. And oh, by the way that depends on if the committees want to fund the program.

As far as $2 trillion over 10 years, that’s $200,000 million a year which add inflation each year and you are talking a lot less than $2 trillion dollars in a year. So who gets the savings?

Now the rest of it, well that is an opinion and one that does stand up to the test of time. So why you can call it “simply gibberish.” I wonder if you think the Banker shouldn’t teach you how to invest and save your money. Or the candle stick maker shouldn’t share with the magic of making a candle?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 20, 2011 8:46 PM
Comment #317652

Z,

I find it foolish to discuss a politics of 18 years ago. Is this the best you can do? Some of these are dead, voted out, or have changed parties. Some were RINO’s before the word was used.

And some are currently serving in the US Senate as conservative Republicans.

If we are going to talk about something that took place 18 years ago, why don’t we talk about the national debt at that time.
We’ll have plenty of opportunities to discuss our debt problems in the future, however national debt is not the topic of this discussion. Nevertheless, I’ll say that I think our debt situation in 1993 was much better than the situation today.
In fact, Warped was probably in diapers at that time.
I was four years old, so I wasn’t wearing diapers, but thanks for the chuckle. I understand that this was a long while ago. However, I must remind you that these ideas persisted in conservative philosophy up until the mid 2000s. When Romney reformed Health Care in Massachusetts, he received applause from many conservative groups. I’ve already linked a few applicable opinions penned by the Heritage Foundation.
Heck, let’s just go back to the 1860’s. That’s only 150 years ago, when democrats voted to support slavery and republicans voted to free the slaves.
During the Third Party System, the Republican Party was liberal and the Democratic Party was conservative, so I don’t know what point you are trying to make. Posted by: Warped Reality at January 20, 2011 8:47 PM
Comment #317655

z-
It’s funny that you mention the Civil War. Before it broke out, The States were threatening Secession. Legislatures were talking about Tenth Amendment Nullification. They were talking about States Rights.

I remember my history.

I remember about the Southern Strategy. Republicans used to be a Northern Party. You call folks like Romney RINOs, which is a cute affectation, but it’s problematic because people like him used to be what real Republicans were like. Then somebody got the bright idea of appealing to disaffected Southern Whites.

And now the Party of Lincoln, the party that fought on what I believe to be the right side of the Civil War, is aping the rhetoric of the belligerents of that conflict.

If you want to live in such stark oblivion about where your party came from, and what it once stood for, be my guest. But you know what? It makes it easier for a bunch of irresponsible politicians, loudmouth pundits, and self-styled political leaders like Glenn Beck to lead you around by the nose. Those who do not remember history, are not merely doomed to repeat it, they’re doomed to be the object lessons on how bad leaders can manipulate a population.

Let me offer you what may be a fairly disturbing theory to you on what the point of the Tea Party, and all the generous help the GOP has given it are about.

The Tea Party is about getting Republicans back into the position where their voters will trust their leaders, without having to actually earn the trust again by positive action.

I remember the Contract With America rhetoric, remembered how overbearing it was. I remember all they promised. It was pretty much the same thing they promised before.

And they’ll break those promises all over again, and for a very good reason: however much they might inspire you to think that this country is Right or Center Right, it’s pretty much down in the middle, and what might play well to you and yours will alienate a lot of people. So, sooner or later, they’ll make their play to the middle, and you’ll face a tough choice, back the play in the face of that dreaded spectre of compromise, or undermine the party in the name of purity.

I know folks like you talk about how having just twenty percent liberals tells us that the Democrats aren’t so popular, but if you look at those who identify as moderates, the Democrats have them in spades. We’re already geared to play towards the center. Your party, on the other hand, keeps on trying to please the most conservative of the conservative, and that has its limits.

The Democrats can create a stable electoral foundation. The Republicans are always going to be pulled in seperate directions by political necessity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #317658

Stephen,
Let’s see how good you remember your history. For why folks like Glen Beck IMHO do not cater to the Conservatives of the Conservatives, but to those who sold out to “The Corporation.” I was wondering what you could tell us about the Whigs of the 1850’s and how what they were saying back than sounds like a lot of what we hear today.

For Z might have forgot that those who fail to learn from the past end up repeating it. However, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or even two thousand years ago many of problems we face today has been dealt with in one way or another by each generation. The question Z and others fear it seems is they and their leaders have no answers for the generation who grew up willing to go past the Ideology of Agreeing to Disagree. And don’t even want to face the fact that the Youth of Today ain’t scared of what tomorrow will bring.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 20, 2011 11:17 PM
Comment #317659

The ironic thing about this “health care” repeal is the solution repub/conservatives have been all aglow about as they misinformation half truths and outright lie their way through the debate. Many of them with a straight face insist the answer is to allow the insurance companies to sell across state lines. In other words to make state insurance regulations ineffective so that insurance can in effect become regulated at the national level like credit cards. So much for states rights. So much for innovation at the state level. So much for conservative principles. Or should that be conservative principals as it is the insurance industry they have sold out to.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 20, 2011 11:22 PM
Comment #317660

j2t2,

They believe in State’s Rights like they believe in the Constitution…when it fits their agenda, and not until.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 20, 2011 11:31 PM
Comment #317662

I think the conservative movement followers do believe in states rights Marysdude or at the least they are told to believe in it and do so without questioning it.. It is the movement leaders that are doing the bidding of their masters in the insurance industry, in this case, that do not have the same principles as the followers believe they have. It is so obvious to those with any critical thinking skills that these conservatives are being duped, as they have been for, judging by this thread at least 18 years. Of course this is just one example of many.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 21, 2011 12:06 AM
Comment #317664

Warped said, “We’ll have plenty of opportunities to discuss our debt problems in the future, however national debt is not the topic of this discussion.”

Warped, this is the topic of discussion, “Job-Killing Tax Cuts and Deregulation”, and we are not sticking to it, so I guess we can bring up and talk about anything.

Now we have Mr. Daugherty giving us a history lesson. So let me get this straight: the party of Lincoln was Republican, they were against slavery, but today they are democrats. The democrats of the southern plantations were in favor of slavery, but today they are Republicans. The democrats of the civil rights era were against civil rights, but today they are Republicans. The Republicans of the civil rights era were for civil rights, but today they are democrats. So what you guys are saying is the parties have switched positions over the past 150 years. I think maybe you guys on the left are smoking the same stuff Henry is smoking. I think this is what is meant by revisionist history.

J2t2 said, “I think the conservative movement followers do believe in states rights Marysdude or at the least they are told to believe in it and do so without questioning it.. It is the movement leaders that are doing the bidding of their masters in the insurance industry, in this case, that do not have the same principles as the followers believe they have. It is so obvious to those with any critical thinking skills that these conservatives are being duped, as they have been for, judging by this thread at least 18 years. Of course this is just one example of many. “

So you are saying the Republican Party is doing the bidding of the insurance companies? You, as well as your liberal socialist friends have again tried to revise history. The insurance companies supported obamacare 100%. The insurance companies were the masters of the democrat party, or visa/versa.

http://covertrationingblog.com/weird-fact-about-insurance-companies/why-the-health-insurance-industry-supported-obamacare

“What Health Insurers Get From Obamacare
In return for its support in the healthcare reform battle, President Obama offered the insurance industry the graceful exit strategy it so desperately needed. Under Obamacare, for at least a few years the insurers hope to get One Last Windfall – namely, profits from the influx of previously-uninsured Americans whose premiums will be paid, or at least subsidized, by taxpayers. Here, the insurers are relying on the likelihood that the inflow of new premiums will, for a year or two at least, greatly outweigh the outflow of money they will have to spend caring for these new subscribers. Obviously, they will use every trick in their well-worn book to stave off expenditures for these new subscribers for as long as they can, but if they actually knew how to avoid paying healthcare costs indefinitely, they wouldn’t be seeking a government bail-out today. In any case, an inflow of new subscribers will be a very temporary source of profit for insurers. Hence, at best it is One Last Windfall.”

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/Obamacare-Winners-Drug-Cos-Hospitals-MDs-Insurance-Cos-The-People-Who-Knows-23-03.html

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/08/11/socialist-obamacare-has-been-good-for-capitalist-health-insurance-companies/?cxntfid=blogs_cynthia_tucker

Follow the LA Times link, if you read it at all.

Posted by: Z at January 21, 2011 10:14 AM
Comment #317667

“So you are saying the Republican Party is doing the bidding of the insurance companies? You, as well as your liberal socialist friends have again tried to revise history. The insurance companies supported obamacare 100%. The insurance companies were the masters of the democrat party, or visa/versa.”

First of all Z, let me say good job to you for your last comment. It is the first I have seen from you that would lead one to believe you have actually went beyond authoritarian conservative mythology and conservative fascist propaganda and thought something out. I of course disagree with your revisionist history comment as it is misleading but good work none the less.

OK that being said, in response to your comment, yes the repubs/conservatives are doing the bidding of the insurance companies. These companies wanted to cross state lines as a means to bypass the state insurance regulations. I don’t disagree with you that the insurance companies also supported the health care bill as it mandates insurance coverage amongst other benefits for these companies, which seems to be good for business. Hopefully you can see how this “reform” all ties into the initial claim that this plan was a repub plan from the ‘90’s now that you understand the insurance companies were for parts of the original bill and are now tasking the repubs/conservatives in Congress with getting the rest of the package for them. Also remember that despite the complete nonsense of socialized, government takeover, yada yada from the far right this plan was not what many of us on the left wanted. Remember the uproar when public option was taken off the table after single payer was taken off the table? So yes campaign contribution from the insurance lobby to the dems paid off for the insurance companies. But the fact remains this reform law is the repub plan of the 90’s.

BTW you don’t really believe the nonsense spouted during the debate about tort reform as the other solution for the health insurance problem we have in this country do you? Just look at who benefits from that joke if you think the repubs/conservatives/tea party types aren’t being lead around by the insurance companies on this issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 21, 2011 10:46 AM
Comment #317668

j2t2 writes; “Many of them with a straight face insist the answer is to allow the insurance companies to sell across state lines. In other words to make state insurance regulations ineffective so that insurance can in effect become regulated at the national level like credit cards.”

You may be interested to know that many insurance products are sold across state lines and have been for decades. I am an insurance agent so I am very familiar with state insurance commissioners and state regulations. There is a national association of state insurance commissioners known as NAIC and you can find them at www.naic.org.

The NAIC is not a governmental agency and operates as a non-profit organization which seeks to organize the regulatory and supervisory efforts of the various state insurance commissioners. It has been in existence since 1871.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 10:47 AM
Comment #317669

Has this been posted? If not, it appears quite pertinent to some Republican/Tea Party claims of constitutionality of the health care act.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

Posted by: LibRick at January 21, 2011 10:51 AM
Comment #317670

Royal Flush,

Health insurance may indeed by currently sold across state lines. But, that is not the real issue. The issue is which state’s regulations control the policy contract. Currently, the state of the insured controls. Thus, a policy issued by a company domiciled in New Mexico to a resident of New York must conform to the requirements of New York regulations, including community ratings, minimum coverage, etc.

The Republican bills proposed in recent years have attempted to alter the above situation by deeming the regulations of the state in which the insurer is domiciled as conforming to minimal federal standards for controlling the policy. It is a somewhat convoluted and tricky argument due to existing lack of federal standards for health policies. But, the bottom line is that the domiciled state regulations will control the policy. Thus, the policy issued by a New Mexico company will only have to conform to New Mexico regulations. That will allow a New York resident to purchase a policy stripped of New York requirements for community ratings, etc. It will result in substantially lower rates for the young and the healthy. But, it will also result in substantially higher rates for older and sicker residents of New York or elsewhere. Very good for the young and healthy, very bad for the middle aged and sick. Companies will obviously move to the least restrictive regulatory state.

The advocates of across state lines sales are fully aware of the results of lowered regulatory requirements and recognize that it will price the older and sick out of the market. That is why each Republican proposal for “across state line sales” includes a requirement for the states to form and subsidize “high risk” pools to accommodate those priced out of the de-regulated private insurance market. In essence, the private sector will get the young and healthy and the government the old and sick. Quite a deal for the insurance industry.

Posted by: Rich at January 21, 2011 11:52 AM
Comment #317672

Z,

Was the President who freed the slaves Republican?

Do you know the political affiliation of the original KKK?

Do you know the political affiliation of the present day KKK?

Was Jim Crow established by Southern Democrats?

Was the armed forces intigrated under a Democrat?

Did the Civil Rights Act come into being under a Democrat?

Do you have any idea who the Blue Dog Democrats are? Why they are called that?

How many black people belong to the Republican Party? Why?

Revisionist history my backside. Read a little and learn a little…it won’t hurt and it might help.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 21, 2011 12:08 PM
Comment #317673

Rich writes; “That is why each Republican proposal for “across state line sales” includes a requirement for the states to form and subsidize “high risk” pools to accommodate those priced out of the de-regulated private insurance market.”

Most states have “high risk” pools for auto insurance for those with driving records so bad that premiums by private insurers make obtaining coverage nearly impossible. These drivers are given the opportunity by the state to join other high risk drivers in a pool that shares their collective risk.

By doing so, high-risk driver’s pay more in premium than lower risk drivers but are more able to obtain insurance and low or standard risk drivers continue to enjoy premiums based upon their responsible driving habits.

Were insurance companies not allowed to discriminate by risk, the lousy driver would be entitled to the same premium rates as the good or exemplary driver and penalize them to make premiums more affordable for the lousy driver.

The same logic applies to life and health insurance. As the health care bill now stands, healthy Americans will pay more to cover those who are not healthy. Much like high risk auto insurance pools, we can establish high risk health pools with premiums being means tested.

We don’t need a national high risk pool for auto insurance as the states are handling that right now. Could the states not also do the same with health insurance? Why must this be a federal issue?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #317674

One additional comment on “across state line” sales of health insurance policies. If there was a true effort to establish reasonable national regulations controlling private health insurance with national community ratings adjusted for regional costs, minimum coverage requirements, etc., I doubt that the insurance industry would be very supportive. The current support for “across state line” sales is about reducing regulatory requirements to bare minimum.

The result of allowing the credit card industry to sell across state lines was devastating to many states’ ability to control usury rates for its citizens. Virtually all the traditional state limitations on usury disappeared or were rendered ineffective after the decision since under traditional contract law, the regulations of the issuing state controlled. All the credit card companies located to states with no usury laws and otherwise favorable regulations.

If there is a good argument for national across state line sale of either credit card contracts or health insurance contracts, it is important for people to recognize that there is a real need to establish federal standards to replace the regulations previously the responsibility of the states.


Posted by: Rich at January 21, 2011 12:22 PM
Comment #317675

LibRick,
Thanks, going on strictly memory I know Americas’ Founding Fathers did a lot in our early years to avoid the Old World ways of Medicine. Amd why sometimes that leads me to long hours od rethinking where and when I learned of such things, I’m glad I am not the only one capable of looking up this information.

Royal Flush,
Thanks for confirming that Americas’ Health Insurance Companies already do business across State lines. For why I know some have been told it is wrong for the Federal Government to mandate individual health care insurance under the Commerce Clause; however, our first hand knowledge seems to put an end to that non sense.

Z,
See it is not so hard to put down the rants of the right and address the issues based on history and their merits. And even though you think I am blowing smoke with some of my comments. Hang around, for why I will very seldom post links due to the Nature of the Beast. If asked I’ll try to post the words which will allow you to follow up on your own where I am coming from.

For you see I do not believe in one source of information or person since it is IMHO an opinion or point of view. So just as I would ask you to google “Democrats and Republicans changing political positions” if you must limit yourself to one article read Political Change

Because why one could say that it wasn’t the parties who changed but their bases have over the years. Today, by Societal Contract Democrats are limited to Labor while Republicans are limited to Management. And why those positions came out of the Civil Rights Movement, given the generational change underway that is subject once again to change.

For why it is nothing new for the Charlatans and Vagabonds of Industry to play both sides against the middle. Just as Parents have been having these done to them as long as there has been kids, it is up to “We the people” to look past the smoke and mirrors to decide what is the best course of action. Because why the Health Insurance Companies do need some extra money to pay for the increase of fees charged by Docotors and Hospitals due to the HICs not paying full price on the bills of their customers, as we show with the repeal of Obama Care the HICs did very little if anything to support the Republicans.

So who are the Republicans and Tea Party supporting given that if the repeal goes through the American Voter will be at the mercy of those who want to continue to inflate the price of health and medical care in America?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 12:55 PM
Comment #317676
Warped said, “We’ll have plenty of opportunities to discuss our debt problems in the future, however national debt is not the topic of this discussion.”

Warped, this is the topic of discussion, “Job-Killing Tax Cuts and Deregulation”, and we are not sticking to it, so I guess we can bring up and talk about anything.

The topic of Stephen Daugherty’s article was the absurdity of GOP claims that the PPACA will increase unemployment. I interpreted this to mean anything related to the PPACA is ok to discuss. This site is only lightly moderated, so we have flexibility in what we discuss. I just don’t know what point you want to make by bringing up the debt in 1993. I understand that we were in a lot better shape back then and that we will need to cut government spending and increase tax revenues if we want to return the debt to a sustainable level.

Now we have Mr. Daugherty giving us a history lesson. So let me get this straight: the party of Lincoln was Republican, they were against slavery, but today they are democrats. The democrats of the southern plantations were in favor of slavery, but today they are Republicans. The democrats of the civil rights era were against civil rights, but today they are Republicans. The Republicans of the civil rights era were for civil rights, but today they are democrats. So what you guys are saying is the parties have switched positions over the past 150 years. I think maybe you guys on the left are smoking the same stuff Henry is smoking. I think this is what is meant by revisionist history.

I don’t know how you learned your history, but the positions of political parties have undergone great changes over the centuries. Historians like to categorize American Electoral politics by so-called “party systems”. Here’s my brief summary of historical party platforms:

The first party system featured the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, who were organized by Thomas Jefferson into the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton’s ideas) were usually in favor of more governmental intervention in the economy and closer ties with England. Federalists generally supported industry and merchant trade interests over agricultural interests, so they were mostly based out of New England. They also opposed the Jeffersonian idea that the 1st amendment erected a wall to separate church and state. On the other hand, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party was the embodiment of classical liberalism. Jeffersonian Republicans opposed government intervention in economic affairs, however they did tend to favor agricultural interests if push came to shove. The Jeffersonian ideal was the yeoman farmer, independent and individualistic. Democratic-Republicans also favored separating religious and governmental affairs; Jefferson coined the phrase “separation of church and state”. Jeffersonians were also ardent supporters of States’ Rights.

When the Federalists opposed the War of 1812 in order to protect the interests of New England merchants, they became politically irrelevant and the US spent a little more than 10 years as a single party state with the Democratic-Republicans running the show. This period was known as the “Era of Good Feelings”

However in the 1820s, this came to an end. The 1824 Presidential election featured four candidates as the Democratic-Republican Party broke apart. By 1828, Andrew Jackson had founded the Democratic Party based on his populist ideas and the second party system had begun. Jacksonian democracy promoted the idea of universal suffrage and many states eliminated property ownership as a requirement before voting. Jacksonian democracy also promoted laissez-faire economics and strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitutions. Jacksonian Democrats also were zealous supports of States’ Rights. Jackson’s Vice President, James Calhoun led the effort in South Carolina to use the state legislature to nullify federal laws. In many ways they were the heirs of the earlier Jeffersonian Republicans. However, anti-Jacksonian factions merged to form the Whig Party, which incorporated many of the same ideas that were formerly a part of the Federalist Party. Jackson got most of his electoral strength from the South and West, whereas the Northeast was a bastion of Whig support. The Whigs supported governmental intervention in the economy through the second Bank of the United States and through government sponsorship of railroads and canals. The construction of the Erie canal was one of their major successes.

Toward the end of of the second party system, the slavery issue reared its ugly head and tore the current system apart. As the abolition movement gained steam, the Whig party was unable to adjust and lost most of its northern members (so-called “conscience Whigs”) to the newly minted “Liberty party and later “Free-Soil” party. Remaining Whigs defected to the xenophobic “Know Nothing” American Party. Eventually the Republican Party succeeded the earlier abolitionist parties and brought an end to Jacksonian Democracy in the election of 1860, which resulted in the civil war. Republicans continued the earlier Whig and Federalist economic policies of governmental intervention. The key promise of Lincoln’s 1860 campaign was to use government funds to construct a transcontinental railroad.

After the Civil War, the third party system emerged. Democrats spent the Gilded Age arguing in favor of States’ Rights, usually in order to preserve the system of oppression against former slaves in the South. Republicans, on the other hand, sought to use the power of the national government to force the former Confederacy to accept the new order. Reconstruction lasted 16 years until the Radical Republicans ran out of steam in 1876. The ensuing years are known as the “Gilded Age” and represented a time when both parties practiced laissez-faire economics. However, Republicans still tried to implement their plans for internal improvements funded by the Federal Treasury. Meanwhile, most disputes revolved around patronage and whether the US used gold or silver to mint coins.

In 1896, the electoral system experienced two revolutions. First, William Jennings Bryan and the Populist Party surged and dramatically reformed the Democratic Party. Although southern Democrats still practiced the conservative politics of Jacksonian Democracy, the Democratic Party in the North forged a new platform based on populism. Although William McKinley, a Republican, won the presidential election, the 3rd party system and the gilded age had ended. After McKinley’s assassination, Theodore Roosevelt elevated progressive politics and championed anti-trust measures. Progressivism continued to be dominant in Woodrow Wilson’s Presidency, which was also heavily influenced by William Jennings Bryan’s populism. Progressive reforms dominated the first half of the fourth party system.

Nevertheless, a conservative faction developed in the Republcian Party, which emerged in the form of William Howard Taft. Infighting between progressive and conservative factions of the GOP in fact led to Wilson’s win in 1912. However, the conservative faction won again in 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the laissez-faire economic ideas from the gilded age made a return. The failure of these policies doomed the GOP for the succeeding generation and the fourth party system came to an end. Out of the wreckage, emerged FDR and the fifth party system.

During the fifth party system, conservatives found a home in both the Southern wing of the Democratic Party, which kept many of its Jacksonian traditions. Other conservatives, continued to reside in the Republican party, where they championed isolationism as the proper response to the growing power of NAZI Germany. Meanwhile, the Democrats passed FDR’s New Deal, which was modeled after Wilsonian Progressive ideas. During the fifth party system, the Republican Party featured infighting between two factions. One faction was composed of the heirs of TR’s progressive movement, which became branded as so-called “Rockefeller Republicans” after their leader Nelson Rockefeller. The other faction was quite conservative and was led by William Howard Taft’s son Robert Taft. In reaction to the horrors of WWII, the conservatives did an about-face on foreign policy and became activist opponents of the Soviet Union and its Communist ideology. Eventually, the conservative faction won control over the GOP as Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon won their party nominations. After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, conservative Democrats from the South began a mass exodus to the Republican party, which shared their views on States’ Rights and other issues. Meanwhile, the “Rockefeller Republicans” became marginalized and many were forced into the Democratic Party. With the breakdown of FDR’s New Deal coalition and the dominance of conservative politics after Reagan’s presidency, many historians believe the fifth party system has ended and a sixth party system has begun, but there are many arguments about the dates involved and some still believe the fifth party system is not yet over.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 21, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #317677

z-
Sorry, fellow, but I have my history right. Yours is the revisionist history. Some people switched parties. Some people were already with the party, but conformed to its switch in positions.

Your people claim continuity with the Framers, but half the time, you don’t even get your own party’s history right.

Put simply, Republicans were not always as hostile to government as they are now. They were not always as extremist. In fact, Republicans pushed back against many of the more extreme groups, including the John Birch Society, in the fifties.

The problem is, what you know about the Republican Party probably mostly comes from a combination of recent history and what the Republican Party tells you now.

Today’s GOP wants to believe itself the culmination of the party’s history. So it leaves out all kinds of inconvenient details and previous positions. And since you listen to nobody else but the GOP, or it’s friendly pundits, you remain ignorant.

Folks in the GOP talk about the price of freedom being eternal vigilance. Well, let me add to that: the price of freedom is having the curiosity to look beyond just the information sources that favor your particular group.

You think you shock me by saying that the insurance companies made out well, well, my people already know this, and objected to it. But they accepted getting some healthcare reform instead of none. Unlike today’s Republicans, they understand that compromise is a part of politics.

Now, they and I want better. Question is, just what can be done with the Republicans at this point? They voted to a person to repeal HCR. The real question is what the Republicans might have in place to deal with the real problem of out of control costs, which HCR only partly dealt with.

It’s not good enough to simply cast aspersions on any policy you don’t like. You got to have alternatives, and not merely the kind you like, but the kind that a public and a Congress that are not entirely Republican can like with you.

But since your folks want everything, don’t want to make compromises, then you can’t really move anything in your own direction. You can only hinder the advance of the other side’s agenda, as they come up with the ideas to do what you refuse to do.

You can’t win simply by saying no. You can’t act like you rule the roost forever. Sooner or later, you will have to reckon with the issues your party will not deal with in a healthy manner.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 21, 2011 1:01 PM
Comment #317678

Rich,
Why there actually is an effort to establish National Principles and Standards due to the some in the business that is an uphill battle to say the least.

Now, as far as the credit card companies mess. Look up how those involved pushed for the lowest common rules and regulations over those who wanted to maintain the highest standards at the time the laws were passed. And why e can’t do anything about the Race to the Bottom mentality of the past. Going forward we should demand and insist all NHC Rules and Regulations meet the same standards as those for the President of the United States of America IMHO.

Royal Flush,
Why I agree that most states do the best job they can in dealing with “High Risk Policy Holders. However, I personally believe that America could use a heavily regulated National Personal Secured Health and Medical Policy to cover those at “High Risk” especially focusing on those with massive expenses.

For why I do not want to deny Doctors and Hospitals any money due them. As business institutions I do believe we should be allowed to pay them over time even if it means taking 30-40 years to make them whole. And why that could be done by individual states, I do believe the burden would be less considering the power of the Federal Government in these cases.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 1:19 PM
Comment #317679

Stephen,
Good job! And all without a single word of hate or malice.

Warped Reality,
Please, tell me that was not off the top of your head. For while right, read along with Stephens’ post I wonder if you two are mot setting in the same room.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 1:33 PM
Comment #317681

Henry writes; “Why I agree that most states do the best job they can in dealing with “High Risk Policy Holders. However, I personally believe that America could use a heavily regulated National Personal Secured Health and Medical Policy to cover those at “High Risk” especially focusing on those with massive expenses.”

I believe that is called “Catastrophic” insurance and it is available on the market and has been for years.

The remark about “massive expenses” is an interesting one. Some on WB interpret the “General Welfare” clause in the constitution as an entitlement provision. Let’s assume for a moment that this is true…and that all Americans are entitled to the same health care at premiums they can afford or paid thru government subsidy.

The only way a private or government run insurance program can balance the ledger is to receive enough in premium to offset costs incurred and benefits paid. If not, the private company goes bankrupt and the government goes into red ink.

With that in mind, just how much do those on WB believe a private or public insurance program should pay as a maximum in benefits? We know that private health insurance has a maximum allowable lifetime benefit. That was one of the things liberals were critical of as I recall.

It would appear that Henry would like no limit of benefits. And, I presume he is prepared to pay more in premium to provide that for others or himself if needed.

If there was no limit to the amount of benefits one can receive would that increase or decrease the national cost of health care?

Would it be considered reasonable as an entitlement for all Americans?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 1:53 PM
Comment #317683

Royal Flush,
Why I agree with you that Insurance Companies and the Goverment should not be held acountable for the “Catastrophic” (thanks, could not think of that word at the time)costs some Americans will have in their lifetime. I am also just as concerned that Doctors and the Hospitals get paid in full for the procedures and services these citizens require in their lifetime.

Hence, the need for a heavily regulated National Personal Secured Health and Medical Policy. Because why I realize that general wisdom would have us believe all the health and medical expenses of a person must be paid in full within the first 30. 60. or 90 days. Recognizing these medical facilites and hospitals are institutions and as such are govrned accordingly like account recievables something can be done to ensure payment in a timely manner.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 2:45 PM
Comment #317684

Henry, you can’t have it both ways. You write that neither insurance companies or the government should be held accountable for catastrophic cost and then advocate for a National personal secured health and medical policy.

What the hell is that if not insurance?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #317685

Here’s a viable solution for both Obama and the country that will create plenty of high paying jobs, bring billions into the US treasury, and help make us energy independent. Will some liberal who has Obama’s ear, phone number or personal email address please let him know about this.

A Solution at Obama’s Fingertips

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2011/01/21/a_solution_at_obamas_fingertips/page/1

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 3:10 PM
Comment #317687

Pearls of wisdom from Marysdude:

Z,
Was the President who freed the slaves Republican? YES
“The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War under his war powers. It proclaimed the freedom of 3.1 million of the nation’s 4 million slaves, and immediately freed 50,000 of them, with the rest freed as Union armies advanced.”

Do you know the political affiliation of the original KKK? YES

“The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee by veterans of the Confederate Army. Although it never had an organizational structure above the local level, similar groups across the South adopted the name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States As a secret vigilante group, the Klan focused its anger reacted against Radical Republicans and sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.”

Do you know the political affiliation of the present day KKK? YES

This one is a little more difficult Marysdude, in 2008 there were only 6000 members nationwide (which is miniscule), David Duke was probably the last prominent politician and he ran as a Republican and a Democrat. George Wallace was probably before him and he was a democrat. So why don’t you tell me?

Was Jim Crow established by Southern Democrats? YES

“Origins of Jim Crow laws
During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877 federal law provided civil rights protection in the South for “freedmen” — the African Americans who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, white Democrats gradually returned to power in southern states, sometimes as a result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaign. In 1877, a national compromise to gain southern support in the presidential election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn from the South. White Democrats had regained power in every Southern state.[4] The white, Democratic Party Redeemer government that followed the troop withdrawal legislated Jim Crow laws segregating black people from the state’s white population.”

Was the armed forces intigrated under a Democrat? George Washington is credited with having the first un-segregated army.

“Author : Patrick J. Charles
Binding : Paperback
BISAC Subject : BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY / Cultural Heritage, History / United States / Colonial Period (1600-1775)
Book Type : NON-FICTION
Dewey : 973
Language : ENGLISH
Pages : 218
Publication Date : 11/01/2005
Inside the Cover:
On December 31, 1775, George Washington sent an important letter to the Continental Congress regarding the enlistment of black soldiers in the Continental Army. Washington had made the decision, once again, to allow free blacks to enlist pending Congressional approval. In the spring of 1775, blacks serving in the Continental Army and state militias were common, but orders issued by Washington, Continental recruiting officers, and legislation passed by Congress decided not to accept blacks as a means of meeting their troop quotas. Washington’s decision to reject, then reaccept, black enlistments has been viewed by historians differently. Different reasons have been given for Washington’s change of heart on December 31, but the same limited evidence has been used to support the differing theories. The story is more complex than historians have previously stated.”

Did the Civil Rights Act come into being under a Democrat?

This one is easy; YES, but only because Republicans supported the Bill, Johnson couln’t get enough democrat votes to pass the Bill.

Do you have any idea who the Blue Dog Democrats are? Why they are called that? YES

“The Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, commonly known as the Blue Dogs, is a group of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify themselves as moderates.”
“It was formed in 1995[2][3] during the 104th Congress to give more conservative members from the Democratic party a unified voice after the Democrats’ loss of Congress in the U.S. Congressional election of 1994.[4] Blue Dog Coalition membership for the 112th Congress currently stands at 26 seats, down from 54 seats in the 111th Congress.”

How many black people belong to the Republican Party? Why? I don’t know, but perhaps you could tell us why Christian conservatives won’t join the democratic party?

Posted by: Z at January 21, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #317689

Royal Flush,
Why the policies would keep government and insurance companies from having to pick up the tab, look under the subtitle Self-Insured to see how “Special Accounts” can be established and administrated by individual lawyers in order to ensure the bills are paid to the Insitutions.

As far as Drill Baby Drill, sure it will produce jobs; however, what are we suppose to do 10 years from now when the whole thing blows up in our face. No, Americans need jobs which will at least last over the next 50 years in orderto make any investment worth it. And while those who want to protect the interest of keeping the Oil Industry top dog in the market will tell us anything in order to keep their power. Spending the same amount of government on Reneable Energy will not only prouce jobs that will be around in 50 years (something oil companies cannot guarantee) America will have a much cleaner environment.

Besides, if it is such a good idea and will create millions jobs America needs why isn’t the $2 trillion dollars setting on the sideline fighting to put their money into the action? Could it be just like the housing bubble that is all these financial gurus know on how to deal with Americas’ Energy requirements of the 21st Century?

Face it, since the 1970’s the days of the V-8 has been slowly coming to and end.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #317691

Henry, I praised you yesterday for the improvement in your writing which resulted in my ability to sometimes understand what you were saying. Today, I must rescind that praise as I have no idea what your first paragraph means.

Your second paragraph appears to dismiss the importance of creating jobs today that may not last 50 years. Tell that to the unemployed and ask what they think Henry. By the way Henry, there is no government investment in these jobs as you incorrectly state. Remove the government subsidies and those regulations that benefit no one and let’s drill baby…drill.

Sorry Henry, but your third paragraph makes no sense at all.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 3:57 PM
Comment #317693

It’s the long term effects of the drugs from the 60’s.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 21, 2011 4:02 PM
Comment #317694

Royal how many jobs do you think will open up? It seems to me that this “drill baby drill” plan is just another repub/conservative ideological wish list item that really won’t create more than a handful of jobs. Judging by the name of the repeal bill just passed in the HOR the “creating jobs as a means to get our wish list” thinking seems to be popular with those on the right but what exactly are they talking about, killing off the alternative energy jobs for a few roughneck jobs in a few areas?
The town hall article you linked to was big on hyperbole but small on facts to support the claims of jobs. I am not against this but with such a bad reputation for actually creating jobs, or caring about the issue at all, the repub/conservatives need to really be specific if they are to be trusted.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 21, 2011 4:40 PM
Comment #317695

j2t2 writes; “The town hall article you linked to was big on hyperbole but small on facts to support the claims of jobs.”

Since I didn’t research their claims I don’t know if it is hyperbole or not and I don’t believe you did any research either.

As for jobs j2t2, greater use of fossil fuels found in land we control will benefit the nation in many ways, some direct and some indirect and all leading to more jobs all across our nation and more revenue for our government.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 5:00 PM
Comment #317696

By Obama’s own administration figures, there were 26,000 jobs lost from the moratorium against oil drilling in the Gulf.

Posted by: bill at January 21, 2011 5:06 PM
Comment #317697

House Vote To Repeal More Than Symbolic

“Wednesday, by a vote of 245-189, the House voted to repeal Obamacare. This may not lead to an immediate repeal victory in the Senate, much less a bill the president will sign, but it’s light-years away from those discouraging rumblings we heard from Republican senators after the passage of Obamacare that they’d never repeal it. Forcing the other side to vote down or veto repeal establishes an inescapable track record that will serve as a foundation to defeat statists in upcoming elections.

The House’s bold fulfillment of its promise to repeal is invigorating, signaling that our elected officials finally do get it, that at least for now, we won’t be witnessing business as usual in Washington. It is an emphatic statement that we have allies in the government who are in this fight with us, who may even be leading this fight to save America from the insidious encroachments of socialism. This may be a first step, but it is a necessary and giant step encouraging us to fight on until we turn the tide — and then fight some more.

You can be sure that the statists will not be deterred by this vote; they will fight on with renewed intensity and greater demagoguery and class warfare. We must be prepared for the onslaught and to redouble our commitment to press forward.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2011/01/21/house_vote_to_repeal_more_than_symbolic/page/1

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 5:34 PM
Comment #317698

This is from one of my favorite political writers. Walter E. Williams. Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

“True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/03/10/is_health_care_a_right

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 5:57 PM
Comment #317699

Royal Flush,
Why Self-Insurance is not part of the tools available to those who just sell insurance policies, you might have to find someone in the office who has had the opportunity to help clients aquire it.

For just as individuals and corporations are allowed to self-insure their fleets. So can an individual and corporations set up self-insured accounts for their health and medical needs. However, being of Old School that is no longer taught so I am told.

Now for the government not supporting oil companies. Try telling that to the one writing the oil companies a check every month for the governments fleet and military vehicles. Just one month of the profits from every Local, state, and Federal vehicle usage of fossil fuel would be enough to make me happy for a while. Than we have tax write offs and other sources of income the oil companies get from our government.

Now, granted the industry might be able to produce a small number of jobs over the next year and even add some revenue; however when compared to Renewable Energy jobs and revenue they don’t even come near matching up.

For why making the generators will add thousands of jobs to communities in America and the production of electrical equippment will add even more. We still need to employee people to make the housing units, install, and maintain these sites. Besides looking at what spin offs can be done to make Home Generation of Electricity more affordable and desireable.

And since the Republicans and Tea Party is looking for budget cuts than imagine if America could reduce the amount of money spent by Local, State, and Federal Government fleets by 50% over the next ten years. For not only can we save money, but by purchasing electric vehicles and renewable power stations we can also create more jobs in the private sector.

So why you can say Drill Baby Drill if it was such a good return on investment. Don’t you think Wall Street would be first in line instead of the pundits for the industry asking for the govenment for more hand outs?

Posted by: Henry Svhlatman at January 21, 2011 5:58 PM
Comment #317700

Henry writes; “Now, granted the industry might be able to produce a small number of jobs over the next year and even add some revenue; however when compared to Renewable Energy jobs and revenue they don’t even come near matching up.”

OH Really Henry…provide me with the facts (not estimates) on that. I believe you pulled that from the thin air you are breathing.

He also wrote; “So why you can say Drill Baby Drill if it was such a good return on investment. Don’t you think Wall Street would be first in line instead of the pundits for the industry asking for the government for more hand outs?”

It may surprise you to know Henry that our largest oil companies are traded on the DOW and their stock is doing very well. Oil is a commodity and trades on various exchanges and also is doing very well.

I believe the oil companies would gladly exchange any subsidies for a reduction of unnecessary regulations.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment #317701

Royal Flush,
It seems the person who said “My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations” seems to overlook the fact that traffic controlers, screening personal, and a whole host of government-imposed obligations required by even those who do not fly provides him the right to travel freely. Surely the near-sightedness of this rant is not asking us to believe he could travel in today’s air space without such obligations of Taxpayer dollars.

Yes, when a person only wants to look at the problem through the narrowest of lens I can see where they fail to see the impact the government has on protecting their rights. For why he says the government does not provide him with airfare and hotel accommodations. One look behind the sences and you will find the government in one form or another involved in making sure the airlines do not overcharge him and the hotels are kept in such an order that the building will not fall down on him while he is sleeping.

So, why he goes about traveking in our skies I think he should inquire on how mush our government-obligations are imposed on others just so his right to travel is safe and secured from tose who would like to cut corners in the name of profits. For does he really know if the plane he is on will have a wing fly off or evem be able to land if the government didn’t impose obligations on the airlines themselve?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 6:20 PM
Comment #317702

Henry…you don’t get it and that’s OK. I can’t debate with someone who is sleeping.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 6:26 PM
Comment #317703

Royal Flush,
Google “projected job growth and revenue Renewable Energy Industry in America” or check out this site Renewable Energy Efficiency Market since you want to make the comment that I am pulling it out of thin air.

And remember those numbers do not include what can be done if Congress would follow in the footsteps of our ancestors and put people to work in order to make it so we get 100% of our electrcity in 20 years from renewable energy sources.

And thanls for making my point for me. For if drilling for more oil was profitable than why aren’t the stocks for those corporations leading the charge in our recovery. No, one look behind the sence and you will find that the profits are being made by the ever increasing of the cost of oil. So in fact producing more on the market would only serve to drive the price of oil down and thus tend to loss profit.

Now as far as “oil companies would gladly exchange any subsidies for a reduction of unnecessary regulations.” Well if I recall right after Katrina the oil companies were asked that very question and all said no. And before you ask me to prove it, look up the hearings Congress held on the matter and you can be bored over the next several days. All I know is that when talk in Congress came around to doing away with those subsidies the entire oil industry starting crying poverty.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #317704

Henry…here’s the title of the article you linked to. I asked for facts and you give me this.

“Renewable, Energy Efficiency Markets Could Create Significant Job Growth

And Henry, pigs could fly if they only had wings.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 6:48 PM
Comment #317705

Royal Flush,
Who is a sleep? You say that you like the author who believes more liberty means less government. However, I beg to differ with him and you on that concept. For why I agree that some government slows down cetain individual rights; however, knowing firsthand that the government does more to protect those rights from someome who would be willing to risk your life and liberty just to make a dollar. Tell me at what point in your right to travel freely am I allowed to put those rights at risk?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 6:52 PM
Comment #317706

Royal Flush,
Haven’t you heard pigs can fly, just try shooting them out of an air cannon.

As far as proof, prove to me that drilling will create just one job without using projections. For until something is done than just like the $2.5 trillion the Republicans and Tea Party want to cut from the budget over the next ten years. “The Fat Lady has not sung.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #317707

Royal Flush-
On the subject of opening the strategic reserves and accelerating oil exploration?

First, oil is fungible. That means what gets drilled here gets sold abroad, doesn’t all stay here.

Second, you’re not going to get the supply online immediately in the case of new drilling. It will take years for such oil to get on the market, and when it does, the figures I’ve seen show it might take no more than nickel or a dime off the cost of gasoline.

And Third, that’s only if the Speculators don’t just eat up the difference with their games.

Lastly, concerning the strategic oil reserves, we really need to keep those back for, say, disasters and times of war. That’s the point of this. If we want to save money on subsidies, by the way, we could do worse than repealing the oil industry subsidies.

If you want truly lowered energy and fuel costs, you can start by supporting research and development on renewables, and shifting our finite resources away from developing a finite resources that will inevitably decline over the next few years. If we make our green technology at home, and use it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, that kills two birds with one stone.

On the subject of the healthcare vote not being symbolic?

Damn right it was symbolic. If not, I challenge David Limbaugh to show me precisely what policy got changed.

He can darkly warn that half this country wants to undermine our economy, our way of life, put themselves and their families in danger, without skipping a beat. The man is thinking and speaking on a purely symbolic level. He and his brother have not bothered to deal with this country’s policy reality for some time. They are more concerned with manipulating people in the symbolic world of politics than actually finding practical solutions to America’s problems.

The vote was symbolic. It changed no policy, created no alternative, and the policy that was in place remains in motion.

Next one, then.

Healthcare isn’t a right, it’s a need. Deny a person healthcare, and they’ll show up at the ER anyways. Republicans, in fact, suggested this meant there was universal healthcare.

And by the way, that is quite the same as what Dr. Williams was talking about. Only, it’s real, it happens every day, and it costs both taxpayers and those who have healthcare billions every year.

The consequences of lacking healthcare means greater inefficiency at the workplace, greater potential for economically ruinous epidemics, greater strain on indigent services. It means more missed days and more missed incomes. It means illnesses that could be caught and treated early are not.

The mess doesn’t go away if you ignore it, and it doesn’t get cheaper.

Republicans have to give their theories and principles a rest, and deal with the real world, with real problems. Healthcare is not simply a right, it’s a need.

Plus, his tax argument is ludicrous. He’s basically saying you can’t run a government without effectively enslaving the people. You can’t tax them without effectively forcing them to work for you.

The only government that would satisfy his yearning for self-sufficiency would be a failed state. Taxes and government, if you want a first class society, are an inevitability.

What we do to make up for that is, we elect our leaders, and rest our delegation of powers, our conceding of our tax dollars and personal sovereignty on their performance of their jobs. If they fail to do as we want to, we have the option of kicking them out at our pleasure, when their term ends.

That’s why this anti-government talk strikes me as ludicrous. If you don’t like what government is doing, elect the people who will change it for your. If it is too big, elect those who will shrink it. Too ineffectual, elect those who will strengthen it. Too wrapped up in politics? delegate to those who have more pragmatism.

This is our country and our government. We are not slaves. Slaves do not choose their masters. Slaves do not get to dictate how their money is spent.

The only reason to tell somebody they are a prisoner if they are not, a slave, if they are not, a dupe, if they are not, is to force people to think that they have no choice but to act like the person telling them wants them to act.

I pity those on the modern right, because it seems to me that they are fearful and afraid of a lot of threats that don’t truly exist, and that those who are convincing them of those threats are really just trying to manipulate them for their own good. I mean, I would like to tell them the good news: We’re not out to kill you, deprive you of your freedom, burn down your church, force your daughters and wives to have abortions, or any of that other crap.

You can breathe easy. You can trust your neighbor. You can shake hands and make deals with the Democrats, if you’re willing to admit that in no Democracy could you ever entirely get your way.

You don’t have to carry the weight of the world on your shoulders. You don’t have to save the country. America will endure, will remain free, and my people will not betray it.

Only those trying to make you look past the greivous failures of your party, and the corruption and greed that cripples your attempts to get good goverment need you to think that you’re under that kind of threat.

Otherwise, you would do worse than turn the tea party on them, you would stay home on election day. That’s why they got behind the Tea Party the way they did: to gain the public support that their real policies and real record would not get for them.

If you want a better country and a better party, you’ve got to stop listening to folks whose main job is getting people to adopt a siege mentality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 21, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #317708

Henry writes; “For why I agree that some government slows down cetain individual rights.”

Henry, how does one slow down an individual right? Let’s take freedom of speech. Would that mean we have that right but must speak slowly?

As for proof that drilling for oil creates jobs I would use the last hundred years or so of employment as a good indication.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 7:14 PM
Comment #317709

Stephen,
Yu mean I can’t put Royal Flushs’ Life and Liberty at risk just because I want to? Rats!

However, I guess that is what My Elders meant by you have to grow up, but never grow old.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 7:23 PM
Comment #317710

>perhaps you could tell us why Christian conservatives won’t join the democratic party?
Posted by: Z at January 21, 2011 03:28 PM>perhaps you could tell us why Christian conservatives won’t join the democratic party?
Posted by: Z at January 21, 2011 03:28 PM

Z,

Perhaps it is because the Democratic party is multiracial?

Harry Truman integrated the armed forces…a Democrat. The first black US Marine reported for duty in ‘53. It took that long for the word about integration to reach the most conservative of our services. Remember, Washington may have had a few ‘freemen’ in his military, but most blacks were only worth 3/5ths of a human to him.

That Southern Democrats fought the Civil Rights Act is known. You did not mention that after it was signed into law, those selfsame Southern Democrats ran as fast as they could to the Republican Party. They were made quite welcome, and there they have stayed.

Wallace was a Democrat, who had to leave the party and form his own.

The point of this exercise was for you to learn many of the things you seemed to be ignorant of. Learning is goooood!

Perhaps the greatest fault of the TeaPublicans is the lack of intellectual curiosity. They spout by rote, without thought, and not a care in the world about the consequences of their words or deeds.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 21, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #317711

RF,

The fossil fuel energy sector is one of the biggest hogs out there when it comes to government subsidies. It would be impossible for them to turn a profit if it wasn’t for taxpayer support. It is ridiculous to imply that increasing fossil fuel extraction will create jobs or increase government revenue. Any jobs created will come at the expense of jobs in other sectors. Why don’t we cut the industry off the government’s teat before we expand it?

I encourage you to learn more here.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 21, 2011 7:27 PM
Comment #317712

Royal Flush,
Actually your freedom of speech is slowed downed or at least delayed for several seconds when talking on the air waves. FCC Rules and Regulations.

And again you show me no proof only the possibility. For imagine 100 years ago when the oil industry had no proof of what impact they could have on the market.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #317714

Obviously Mr. Daugherty didn’t read the article I linked to before writing this;

“Second, you’re not going to get the supply online immediately in the case of new drilling. It will take years for such oil to get on the market, and when it does, the figures I’ve seen show it might take no more than nickel or a dime off the cost of gasoline.

Lastly, concerning the strategic oil reserves, we really need to keep those back for, say, disasters and times of war.”

Thanks for making me laugh today Stephen. It will take years and we need it for emergencies such as war and disasters. I wonder how its availability speeds up only when it is needed immediately? How long do you think any reserve we have would last in a war?

And of course, the article linked was not about lowering cost at all, it was about jobs and government revenue. Give it a read Stephen and then we can talk.

Stephen continues with his silly ignorant comments by saying; “The vote was symbolic. It changed no policy, created no alternative, and the policy that was in place remains in motion.”

Has there ever been a bill passed in the house that immediately went into law bypassing the senate and president?

Stephen wrote; “Healthcare isn’t a right.”

Congratulations…give the man a cigar. Finally, a liberal who states that it is not covered in the “welfare clause” as a right.

Ooops…wait a minute, he now disagrees with himself, a sure sign of a mental disorder by writing…”Healthcare is not simply a right, it’s a need.”

Give me back that cigar Stephen. Hey, I need more money, give me some of yours mister.

Adding to his humor today Stephen writes; “If you don’t like what government is doing, elect the people who will change it for your. If it is too big, elect those who will shrink it.”

Man…I am almost choking from laughing so much. Let’s see, we just had an election and did exactly what Stephen recommends. How ‘bout that. Once again he tickles the keyboard before engaging the brain.

Oh, man, this just keeps getting better. He writes; “I pity those on the modern right, because it seems to me that they are fearful and afraid of a lot of threats that don’t truly exist.”

Hmmm, like $14 or $15 trillions in federal debt, states going broke, unemployment at 9.7%, global enemies getting stronger every year…need more scary stuff Stephen?

Stephen, I’ve got to stop reading your stuff. Laughing so hard hurts.


Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #317715

Thanks for the link Warped Reality. Here’s the highlight of the article…”Abundant, affordable energy is essential to the American way of life, and the federal government uses subsidies to ensure that it remains available.”

The article also stated that energy subsidies were not as high as in some other industries.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2011 8:05 PM
Comment #317716

Royal Flush,
727 million barrels of oil plus that which is held in other places the government will not share with the general public. So how long will it last in a war. Seeing if we were smart and quickly produced electric military vehicles who knows? Certainly a lot longer than having no reserve at all. Just look at what Katrina did to the price of gas because the oil companies have failed to follow the lead of our government?

Even today, what happens when the next storm hits the gulf? Seems to me the abundance of affordable energy in the 21st Century isn’t with the oil companies.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 8:27 PM
Comment #317717

Henry, Where pray tell are you going to get the generators to keep those electric military vehicles going in the middle of a battle, and do you know how huge an electric motor you would need and battery to propel a tank?

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2011 8:34 PM
Comment #317718

RF,

You just elected people who will shrink government and make changes you desire? When was the last time your group had the upperhand…how did THAT work out?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 21, 2011 9:00 PM
Comment #317719

KAP,
Google “Electric Military Vehicles” since there are so many of them now than when I first learned of the concept.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 9:03 PM
Comment #317721

Henry, those are on Base support vehicles where charging capabilities are avaliable, NOT and I repeat NOT combat vehicles. Where are you going to be able to charge a tank in the middle of combat?

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2011 9:09 PM
Comment #317722

KAP,
Look up electric hybrids military assualt vrhicles. For why I am nosure sure of exactly what Future Weapons show on Discovery I fist show the vehicles I am sure if you dig deep enough you’ll run across a reference or two to what you are talking about. However, A word of warning. Some sites will activate Big Brother.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 9:26 PM
Comment #317723

Henry, Small assult vehicles, jeeps, and other smaller vehicles may be able to be electric. But the need for fuel to run Tanks, heavy assult vehicles, Naval ships, planes, and other vehicles where being electricaly powered is not feasible. When in battle you can’t tell the enemy time out I need to charge my vehicle.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2011 9:34 PM
Comment #317724

“As for jobs j2t2, greater use of fossil fuels found in land we control will benefit the nation in many ways, some direct and some indirect and all leading to more jobs all across our nation and more revenue for our government.”

That’s it Royal, vague assertions that fossil fuels will create more jobs? How typical considering I just watched a commercial claiming how the company can do oil and natural gas from the same well. Vague assertions that these jobs will be all across the nation despite no geological surveys indicating oil in many areas? What next Royal some sort of “trust me I’m a conservative” speech? Lets get serious instead Royal and get some serious numbers of jobs so we can have a vibrant middle class in this country. That’s what you guys claimed made you worthy of being elected to office, now produce instead of nonsensical repeal of health care bills.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 21, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #317725

We had two voices of reason, each in its own way crying into the wilderness of hate and vehemence being spewed so ineloquently from the right. Maddow and Olberman…now there is but one. Olbermann has been denied a contract with MSNBC. His last show was tonight. I hope the last voice will not also be quieted. Reason has taken a terrible hit this evening.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 21, 2011 10:13 PM
Comment #317727

KAP,
Why I don’t think we will have electric tanks and heavy assult vehicles in the battlefield in the next two years or so; however, knowing we have had aircraft carriers and subs powered by nuke electric generators since the 60’s what I have been able to find out about the electric drive systems (which is limited as you would expect) does lend itself to wondering if our tanks in the future will actual fire the shells we grew up on or be equipped with some sort of electric magnetic weapon or lasers.

What clearly is an advantage for our military is the fact that these new types of military vehicles will help us not run into the same problem as Armies in the past. Because if you remember in WWII it was as much of our air attacks on Germany as Germany ground forces running out of fuel toward the end of the war which help win the war.

Besides, as I am sure you noticed some of the concepts being studied today makes you wonder what our military will look like by 2050. for I still not sure of what they are talking about when they are speaking about future planes not needing to burn jet fuel. Especially since today we already have civilian planes (virgin airlines) already experimenting with the usage of bio fuel.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 10:32 PM
Comment #317730

Henry, You are talking about something in the distant future. The need we have is now not 50 years from now.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2011 11:17 PM
Comment #317731

Dude, Maybe FOX will hire him.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2011 11:18 PM
Comment #317732

He doesn’t lie on air, so FAUX would have no use for him…he ain’t no Juan Williams.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 21, 2011 11:34 PM
Comment #317733

Henry, The power plant on an Aircraft Carrier and other Nuc ships is much like conventional powered ships the only difference is a reactor instead of a boiler. How I know this is from first hand experience being I served on the USS Bainbribge DLG[N]25 or CG[N]25 before she was decommissioned. Steam turbines turn the shafts of the ships, and also the generators that supply electricity throughout the ship Electric motors DO NOT turn the propeller or screws as we in the Navy called them. But the navy still need fossil fuels for their planes and non nuc ships. Training of personnell to operate nuc plants is very expensive and takes 1 year of schooling plus constant study on board ship.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2011 11:35 PM
Comment #317735

Dude, If you don’t believe he lies on air then I have ocean front property to sell you here in Ohio.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2011 11:38 PM
Comment #317736

KAP,
New Electric Ship Propulsion systems are not only making there way to civilian ships, but military ones as well. So why we are not talking 50 years from now, like the F-117 Fighter I cannot say when we will see these new vehicles on the battlefield. For after all, you especially should know that what the nilitary has is not always what the Common Knowledge of the Public is lead to believe.

For why does the name of your ship sound familar? What is so special about it that the name rings a bell?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 21, 2011 11:55 PM
Comment #317737

Royal Flush-
Obviously, Mr. Flush is too busy congratulating himself on winning the argument to notice that he’s still wrong.

See, somebody calls something the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, one would think the idea would be to cushion against some sort of shock that might occur, say, OPEC cut us off again.

Why is it that Republicans have to cut every contigency down to the bone? It’s not surprising with this unwillingness to leave any room for error, or just plain bad luck, that we’re in the **** shape we are now. I got news for you, sometimes **** happens, and if you’ve done something stupid, like say, set record deficits even before the economy collapses, well, you’re going to play hell getting out of debt once it has collapsed, now aren’t you?

No. We don’t need anymore of this stupidity. Leave our strategic reserve alone. Let’s save it for rainy day, rather than plan on being caught without it.

And as for drilling? It’s time to stop devoting ourselves to the energy source of the twentieth century, the declining, dwindling, soon to be obsolete energy source, and start doing what’s in our interest: making America both the biggest source and the biggest user of renewables and alternative energy sources. Let’s not let China get ahead of us on this, and dominate the market instead.

Let’s not also remain dependent on a fuel source that is proving to be a strategic and economic liability for us.

On the subject of the house vote?

I don’t see how ignorance enters into it. I know a bill has to be passed by both houses of Congress to even be sent to the President’s desk. I know that it has to either be signed by the President, or passed by two-thirds of both houses.

If it’s not, the bill dies. Hell, a grade-schooler could tell you that. A bill that dies respresents absolutely nothing in terms of policy.

The only meaning it has is for the people who are satisfied that the House passed their repeal. But since that passage takes the bill nowhere further, it’s just a symbol.

You’ll have to tell me what I missed that changes that particular situation. You’ll have to show me where a real change of policy results.

Otherwise, you’re just not being honest with yourself or your readers about what “symbolic” means.

As for mental disorders? Stick to your day-job.

Simple fact is, a person cannot survive in today’s world without healthcare. They cannot maintain decent health, immunizations from diseases, recovery from major diseases like Stroke, Heart Attack, and Cancer, or be healed properly from moderate to severe injury.

Without healthcare, I could tell you, my father and Grandfather would soon be dead men. In the old days, they probably would have already been.

Hell, as a premature child who was turning blue when he was born, I might not have survived without modern healthcare. So, if you think I’m insane for suggesting it’s a need, then I’ll tell you that I think that sentiment itself is madness.

We can either figure out how to deal with this need maturely and responsibly, or we can allow things to get steadily worse, with literal life-and-death consequences for the people of this country.

As for what I said about elected officials? That’s Democracy in a nutshell. If you find it funny that I suggest people shouldn’t fear their government because they can revoke their support from those who cross them, then you fail to realize that the point of our Republic is in the first place. The whole point of the way we set up our government is to make sure that the politicians have to consider our wishes, act accountably to us

If you find that funny, I just have to wonder what informs such a strange sense of humor.

As for that 14 trillion dollar debt, about nine trillion of that came about because Republicans and others thought that the fiscally conservative Republicans could save the day on the nation’s finances.

They not only failed every time, they failed miserably. Maybe what you should truly fear is your own unwillingness to entertain the notion of your own party’s culpability in these matters.

Because with that failures of self-assessment comes a bunch of symbolically splendid, but practically pathetic actions, as your people try to talk their way out of another fiasco.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 21, 2011 11:59 PM
Comment #317738

Henry, Electric ship propulsion is old. WW2 subs were powered by electric motors while submerged but on the surface were powered by diesels. Some Navy ships are turbo electric some are powered by the same jet engines that are on 747 airliners. Small Destroyer Escort ships were diesel electric during WW2. But the fact remains they need fossil fuels to power the diesels or turbine engines to turn the generators for the motors to turn the screws.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 12:09 AM
Comment #317739

KAP,
Why our minds are set in the 20th Century and I am certain some of our ancestors made fun of those who thought steam ships where state of the art. Knowing it is only a matter of time before someone figures out how to combine the energy of sails with the energy required by electric motors. Check out Wind Ships to see if we have to wait 50 years.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 12:37 AM
Comment #317740

Sorry limk did not work try http://www.ask.com/wiki/Windmill_ship

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 12:38 AM
Comment #317743

KAP,

Cite please. If you ask me to cite the Beck or O’Reiley on air lies, I can provide them in a few minutes. You made the statement…cite Olbermann’s on air lies.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 22, 2011 6:53 AM
Comment #317744

Royal, have you ever noticed the left always comes up with the same excuse when talking about increasing our oil production?

Comment #317707
“Second, you’re not going to get the supply online immediately in the case of new drilling. It will take years for such oil to get on the market,”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 21, 2011 07:06 PM

This is the exact same line that liberal socialists have been saying ever since the days of Jimmy Carter and the great oil depression of the 70’s. It has been said thousands of times by liberals and yet, if we had just improved production 40 years ago, we would be in good shape today and not as dependent upon Arabs. The second great lie is we don’t have the reserves and the third great lie is it would be sold overseas and would not help us.

Marysdude, you asked me a series of questions and I researched the answers to give back to you and now you call me a liar. You might want to research th answers yourself instead of flying off the emotional handle.

“>perhaps you could tell us why Christian conservatives won’t join the democratic party?
Posted by: Z at January 21, 2011 03:28 PM>perhaps you could tell us why Christian conservatives won’t join the democratic party?
Posted by: Z at January 21, 2011 03:28 PM

Z,

Perhaps it is because the Democratic party is multiracial?”

Want to provide proof for this lie? It is idiotic to say the Republican Party is not multiracial, and it it is disgusting and evil to imply Christian conservatives are racists. This kind of statement comes from an eveil minded person who is anti-christian.

“Harry Truman integrated the armed forces…a Democrat. The first black US Marine reported for duty in ‘53. It took that long for the word about integration to reach the most conservative of our services. Remember, Washington may have had a few ‘freemen’ in his military, but most blacks were only worth 3/5ths of a human to him.”

I told you, George Washington was known to be the first American military leader to be an un-segregationalist with his military.

“That Southern Democrats fought the Civil Rights Act is known. You did not mention that after it was signed into law, those selfsame Southern Democrats ran as fast as they could to the Republican Party. They were made quite welcome, and there they have stayed.”

Give me names and dates, not liberal socialist talking points.

“Wallace was a Democrat, who had to leave the party and form his own.” Your right, he was a democrat.

“The point of this exercise was for you to learn many of the things you seemed to be ignorant of. Learning is goooood!

Perhaps the greatest fault of the TeaPublicans is the lack of intellectual curiosity. They spout by rote, without thought, and not a care in the world about the consequences of their words or deeds.


Posted by: Marysdude at January 21, 2011 07:26 PM”


The rest is supposition and inuendo, in other words, “TALKING POINTS” from liberal socialists.

On another point; since MSNBC has finally wised up and gotten ride of Olbermann, do you think Maddow is next? She is just as evil. I say she changes or she is gone. For all the rhetoric from the left about big business and corporations, it still all boils down to ratings and profit. These two are not providing it…

Posted by: Z at January 22, 2011 9:54 AM
Comment #317746

Z,

“For all the rhetoric from the left about big business and corporations, it still all boils down to ratings and profit. These two are not providing it…”

And the truth has nothing to do with it…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 22, 2011 10:55 AM
Comment #317747

Henry, We would still have to wait decades before any kind of wind ship would be feasible. Just look how big one windmill generator is today. How big or how many do you think would be needed to power one Carnival Cruise Ship and how high the mast would have to be to handle the windmill.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 10:58 AM
Comment #317748

Dude, If you don’t believe he lies on air then I have ocean front property to sell you here in Ohio.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2011

Hey KAP, surely some liberals should be interested in your property. After all, with their man made global warming predictions it won’t be long before Ohio does have ocean frontage. I am opting for a house boat here in East Texas.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 11:07 AM
Comment #317749

Got that right R.F.
Dude Cite one time he tells lies it’s everytime he was on air he would tell you liberals what you wanted to here not the facts just like those on FOX. It was ratings Dude his aren’t there and neither is Maddows.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 11:15 AM
Comment #317750

KAP,

Great citations, thanks.


RF,

Stupidity and immaturity must be contagious, now you’ve caught them too. Take a couple of Aspirin and stay off the computer for a few days, you may get better.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 22, 2011 11:22 AM
Comment #317752

Sorry you don’t appreciate my attempt at humor Marysdude.

Well, tomorrow is playoff day to determine the Super Bowl competitors. I will share my picks and hope you do the same.

Green Bay (24) Bears (17) What a brawl that will be. I grew up in Wisconsin and the Pack is number one in my book.

NY Jets (31) Steelers (24)

Super Bowl Green Bay (31) NY Jets (24)

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 12:03 PM
Comment #317753

“Hey KAP, surely some liberals should be interested in your property. After all, with their man made global warming predictions it won’t be long before Ohio does have ocean frontage. I am opting for a house boat here in East Texas.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 11:07 AM

Why is denial of the facts a conservative principle?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110122/sc_afp/scienceclimatewarminggreenlandicesheet

Posted by: j2t2 at January 22, 2011 12:51 PM
Comment #317754

I recall something I read a week or two ago. Sorry, can’t remember where but I thought it was appropriate at this time of financial crisis.

We should look at the federal budget in terms of “nice-to-have” and “must-have” and then eliminate funding for the first.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 1:03 PM
Comment #317755

j2t2 why is humor alien to liberals?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 1:19 PM
Comment #317756

Royal, liberal socialists are pessimist and always believe the glass is half empty. They always have a scowl on their faces, and they never enjoy humor, unless it is when they are making fun of someone. And why not, they have no hope; they don’t believe in a creator, they think they originated in a mud pond as an ameba. They believe when they die, they just cease to exist. They believe the world will end, in their lifetime, if they don’t shut down the production of oil and coal. They are always mad at people (especially conservatives) who are successful. They think America is evil for using all the world’s recourses. They have to live with the guilt of supporting homosexual activity and abortion. In fact, let’s see what God has to say about these God haters:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Posted by: Conservativethiker at January 22, 2011 1:47 PM
Comment #317758

It always amazes me how someone can call themselves a christen and tell bald faces lies. But on the other hand calling ones self a conservative and a thinker is pretty damn funny.

Posted by: Jeff at January 22, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #317759

This report was written in 2003 from 1994 data. I believe most libs would be very happy if the cost of fossil fuels made them too expensive to use. However, if they want to eat perhaps they should revise their thinking. I did attempt to find more up to date info but gave up.

“In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

· 19% for the operation of field machinery

· 16% for transportation

· 13% for irrigation

· 8% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

· 5% for crop drying

· 5% for pesticide production

· 8% miscellaneous8

Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #317760

“j2t2 why is humor alien to liberals?”
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 01:19 PM

It’s not humor that is alien to liberals Royal, it is what conservatives refer to as humor that is alien to liberals. To make it easier for us that have a hard time with conservative humor why not help us out with an emoticon such as ;) so we know it is a conservative attempt at humor?

conservativethinker in the irrelevant blue column again? Lack of discipline in keeping the resolution going longer than three weeks? Or did you just slip up and use the wrong name this time?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 22, 2011 2:14 PM
Comment #317761

“bald face lies”

Which ones?

Conservativethinker: conservative,(of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism.); thinker,( to subject to the processes of logical thought ); the process of thinking conservatively.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 22, 2011 2:23 PM
Comment #317762

KAP,
Why I have no doubt it will take a few more years before we see the bib boys in the shipping business realize the benefits which Wind Ships van have on their bottom line; however, the idea of mini high power windmills already on line I can only wonder when we will see the 10 & 20 Mega Watt Windmills merge with the Minis to make so even our oil tankers do not have to use their cargo to cross the oceans.

For although I can understand the concept of cystral generators, I’m still finding hard to gey anyone involved in the business to explain how they work. So why we are left thinking of ships with 50 foot masks needed to house the windmills which will be needed to power the Big Boys. In the not to distant future, I could see how the Cruise Ships could be designed to take advantage of the sea breeze found all around the world. For besides powering the ship, the proper design could be used to provide cool air to all the ship rooms.

Now the question is are we ready for ships who do not need to make port except to board and unboard their passengers as well as pick up supplies? In fact, with a little bit more thought I can see the day when those days are no longer needed. As other boats could be used to ferry people and supplies out of the ports and into the deep waters off shore.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 2:24 PM
Comment #317763

Thanks for all the biblical quotes conservativethinker. For me, it is always a pleasure to read God’s word. One must be humble to believe in a creator God. And, I believe that one reason for being an Atheist is an inability to believe in anything greater than oneself.

I just donned my asbestos suit as I expect a lot of burning criticism from Atheists.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #317764

j2t2; Since we are loosing Remer and Siegel and perhaps Stephen, I figured it would be worth my while to comment.

By the way, things are not looking good at DiscussAmerica. Remer is almost the only one commenting in all 3 columns. Perhaps if you could go over and help them:)

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 22, 2011 2:32 PM
Comment #317766

j2t2 writes; “To make it easier for us that have a hard time with conservative humor why not help us out with an emoticon such as ;) so we know it is a conservative attempt at humor?”

I will do that if you promise to stick it on your forehead so all will know you are a humor challenged liberal.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 2:37 PM
Comment #317765

Royal, I don’t think you have to worry about the asbestos suit because j2t2 said it was all lies about liberals hating Christians, lol. So I don’t expect any fire and brimstone from the left:)

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 22, 2011 2:37 PM
Comment #317767

Conservativethinker wrote; “By the way, things are not looking good at DiscussAmerica…”

I have visited the site a few times but it wasn’t very interesting. Perhaps it will improve with time. I hope so.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment #317768

Royal Flush,
No wonder we don’t agree! I would say Bears and Steellers with the Steelers taking it all; however, I’m not sure if that is wishful thinking or hope since I don’t put much in stats. For as we all know to well it is what team shows up on the field that day which walks away the winner. At any point, thanks for answering my question. For I woke up a little while ago wondering when the two games were going to be played.

Conservativethinker,
All to easy! For why I could say that Conservative today means those who believe White Euro Elite still need to be in charge and think that they need to find away to ensure others from gaining power.

However, knowing that some Conservative Thinkers realize the importance of the Republic in Society and Think over time they can convince the Democeatic of Society that working for the Common Ground in those goals are important.

It takes away from those who would believe America should be allowed to strip the world of her resources in order for personal gain. besides, I already know no Conservative or Liberal in their right mind is going to say I have that right to teach My Child how to accomplish that goal.

J2T2,
I believe it is because Liberals see no humor in living with Myths. For what is so funny about Death Panels when End of the life Counseling allows one to die with Honor?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 2:49 PM
Comment #317769

I know some didn’t care much for David Remer’s writing but I did and I miss him.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 2:50 PM
Comment #317770

Henry writes; “For I woke up a little while ago wondering when the two games were going to be played.”

Sunday, first game Pack and Bears at 3:00 CDT and Jets Steelers at 6:30.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 2:54 PM
Comment #317771

Henry…I sure do love watching the cheerleaders at football games. How ‘bout you? Can we agree on that?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 2:57 PM
Comment #317772

I will read what is posted, but since Remer is running the site, I have no interest in commenting. He is too hateful for me. He talks down to anyone who does not agree with him. Life is too short to waste my time reading his material.

On a lighter not, Drudge has the list of most watched cable news shows and FOX holds the top 6 spots. Olbermann was 7th with a little over 1 mil viewers and Rachel Maddow is well below him. I predict Maddow is gone too. Olbermann came close to being booted last Novemeber. Honestly, I have tried to watch Maddow and Olbermann, but I can’t stomach their vitriol. I have never seen such angry people. On the other and, FOX news is a joy to watch, even when they have opposing views as part of their “Fair and Balanced” reporting.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 22, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #317773

“I will do that if you promise to stick it on your forehead so all will know you are a humor challenged liberal.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 02:37 PM

Royal it would be easier on all of us if ya just said something funny. Until then I was suggesting the use of the emoticon so the rest of us could tell you were trying to be humorous.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 22, 2011 3:11 PM
Comment #317774

One of the reason’s I enjoyed reading Mr. Remer’s comments was that he challenged my thinking and forced me to improve my writing skills and research. One could not be lazy in their writing, present false information, or write poorly formed opinion without facing his fierce rebuttals. I found him to be mostly fair and when presented with a good solid argument was willing to change his mind. And, he managed to change my mind on a few things.

He is sorely missed by many here including me.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 3:12 PM
Comment #317776

j2t2, beauty and humor are both in the eye and ear of the beholder…

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 3:14 PM
Comment #317777

Royal Flush,
Why a short shrit or hot pants don’t trun me on, I will say that most of the cheer leaders in the NFL will turn a head or two. So why I agree they are fun to watch when the game is not in play; however, putting them above the game is something I think both of us can agree is just plain sick!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment #317778

On the other and, FOX news is a joy to watch, even when they have opposing views as part of their “Fair and Balanced” reporting.

Now that is comedy. And here’s that lying part.

Posted by: Jeff at January 22, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment #317779

“j2t2, beauty and humor are both in the eye and ear of the beholder…”


Royal yet you post “j2t2 why is humor alien to liberals?”


“j2t2; Since we are loosing Remer and Siegel and perhaps Stephen, I figured it would be worth my while to comment.”

Well as ling as you don’t suffer the illusion it is worth our while to read them. ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at January 22, 2011 3:23 PM
Comment #317780

Henry…watching cheerleaders sure beats watching commercials. I am faithfully married for 24 years but would be dishonest if I didn’t admit to liking eye-candy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #317781

Conservativethinker,
Considering David was the first one to challenge me when I first started posting at WB I can understand how one could dislike him. For why him and I to this day have a hard time seeing eye to eye on the issues, I do miss the time when he and others on this site would spend hours if not days going point for point over the issues.

In fact, C&J and Royal Flush as well as KAP and J2T2 have no problem debating the issues instead of resorting to name calling. So why you may not like David for making you set aside your feelings and debating strictly from the facts instead of the talking points of the two political parties, many of us here at WB have for a long time made it our goal to keep the tone of this blog civil.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 3:32 PM
Comment #317782

Henry writes; “I do miss the time when he and others on this site would spend hours if not days going point for point over the issues.”

I agree Henry. David was always challenging and would often bring up points that would lead us to think harder or research deeper. For sure, he could be annoying and very critical…but, aren’t we all?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #317783

Jeff,
Is Fox News the joke or the myth that they are Fair and Balanced? For what turns me off is how the commetators and reporters say how the Liberals want to take away your liberities at the same time they are telling their viewers how they should act, breath, and believe the way things should be. sort of reminds me of the old saying “The Pot calling the Kettle black.”

Royal Flush,
Why Man will always (hopefully) want with eye candy, I still don’t believe they should let it get in the way.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #317784

Henry, I can’t recall ever missing a play because the camera was on the cheerleader.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #317785

Royal Flush,
why I can’t say David ever got me to change my point of view (blame it on the Nature of the Beat); however, almost ever time he would make me recognize that others sue to their beliefs, experience, etc… had just as much right to their political views.

For example; yesterday you and I was debating over the current health care problem and the need for Congress to do something about it. And why I realize we could spend the next several days discussing our point of views on the issue. I con’t think once we have resorted to calling each other names or bashing one and other for our political stances.

And that is what I liked about David. The fact he is a Lawyer and thus by default a sworn enemy and I just a simple American Layman Citizen never entered into our debates. And it is the same way with you. For why you do admit to selling insurance and thus by default understand how the current system works better than me. We are still able to exchange points of view on the subject and discuss how we see the Issue (in this case repealing health care reform) will have an impact as well as state how we think both parties could change things so they work better for all concerned.

And on the brighter side of things. I think we can both agree that if the camera focused on the cheerleader in the last two minutes of a tied game that we would scream; however, just like politics how many wouldn’t even notice th game due to the eye candy?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 4:12 PM
Comment #317786

Henry, thanks for your last paragraph…it made me laugh. I agree with you on the rest of your comments as well although I don’t believe David is an attorney.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 4:18 PM
Comment #317787

Royal Flush,
Although I can’t remember what he does as a Lawyer, I do know it has something else to do than Law and Order. And why I could say the same thing about you selling insurance. Told by My Elders of the 70’s that is one subject that I am forced to accept the Authority of Society. I’ll let you slide for sleeping IMHO with the Devil.

For after all, it is trying to figure out how to provide the health and medical care, procedures, and services for All Americans and paying for them that matters more than who is right and who is wrong. Wouldn’t you agree?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 4:33 PM
Comment #317788

I agree Henry. You might find it interesting to know that one of the greatest rewards from my job is when I see a family financially survive a death of father or mother or bad health or accident situation because I have been instrumental in their having insurance.

I also sell long-term care insurance and find it very rewarding that, because of insurance, they don’t have to spend nearly all their assets and rely upon Medicaid to receive the care they need at home, in an assisted living facility or nursing home.

Henry, I was visiting a client who was bed-ridden at home and receiving custodial services paid for by insurance. When I was there his care giver had gone to lunch. I emptied his bed pan as his wife was down as well.

For many Henry, having insurance is the difference between merely surviving and surviving with dignity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 4:47 PM
Comment #317789

KAP,

Keith is an incredible writer and talent. He may have a big ego. He may have gone over the top on occasion, but NO ONE has more respect for and more allegiance to the TRUTH than Keith. It is his outrage at the lies of others with ‘voice’ that fueled his passion.

Sadly there are a few who are a thorn in the side of corporate networks. They do things that make the powerful interests squirm. We can only hope he reemerges as an even more powerful ‘voice’. bold Truth is patriotism
. And Keith, like Murrow did, knows this.

I do not believe he will reemerge with any ‘voice’, and I am saddened by that doubt.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 22, 2011 5:03 PM
Comment #317790

Yup Marysdude, always tough to lose a voice you find agreeable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2011 5:14 PM
Comment #317791

Royal Flush,
I agree that “Insurance” is a necessary evil and that is why I can’t understand why the Republicans and Tea Party oppose making it available for every American. For why I recognize that their argument doesn’t hold water and one can argue has more to do with the Have and Have Not than the soundness of husiness or national security. I s is the simple fact they believe the health and medical care, procedures, and services one recieves without insurance is somehow equal and does not take away from the profitablity of the rest of society that makes me wonder about the soundness of their Ideology and Principles on the subject.

For as you know better than I there are ways for a policy to be written to not only make the monthly payments affordable, but over its lifetime increase the benefits availablt to the customer. Thus, why we have the opportunity lessen the burden on the taxpayer, bridge the prohabitity gaps in employer based health care insurance, and insure every consumer through innovative policies packages (i know the wording ain’t proper). Here we have the two political party pundits debating over job killing and death panels.

No, the old saying “A penny of something is worth more than $1.00 of nothing” holds more true to insurance than any other industry; nevertheless, recognizing that no one can explain why that is so I guess we will have to hope our Elected Officials have to do more than just push a few numbers around in order to allow us to enjoy the Health and Medical Care, Procedures, and Services that Western Medicine can provide in the 21st Century.

For as an Informed Patient I will be the first to sugn up for an insurance policy which allows me to dictate what halth and medical expenses should be paid for through Managed Care and which one I should pay for out of pocket. Because IMHO the policies on the market today almost makes it impossible to decide if I am getting Health Treatment or paying the Medicine Man of the 1800’s.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #317794

Please don’t talk about football. I’m still depressed from the Patriots’ loss last week.

RF & KAP,

Thank you for reminding us that fossil fuels will continue to be an important part of our lives for many decades to come. Their value is so great in these applications that it is certainly a waste to burn them to produce electricity or power a civilian vehicle when there are plenty of cheaper alternatives present.

Perhaps an analogy can be drawn with the immigration issue. Right now, the Left has advocated for legalizing the immigration status of people who are currently here illegally without any conditions regarding securing the border. The Right has refused to consider any “amnesty” proposals until after the border is secure. Similarly, I refuse to consider expanding the fossil fuel energy sector unless I can be guaranteed that the expansion is unsubsidized and that a protocol is in place to internalize the external costs of fossil fuels.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 22, 2011 6:18 PM
Comment #317799

Dude, He should have stayed as a sports caster.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #317800

Warped, Consider this, If amnesty is given to those illegals that are already here without securing the borders, what is there to stop more illegals from entering the U.S.? Secure the borders first and then we can talk about what to do with the ones that are here now illegally.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 8:05 PM
Comment #317802

RF,

Agreeable, schmeeable. I found his voice to be honest. What a refreshing change from the usual crap being spouted.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 22, 2011 9:32 PM
Comment #317803

If amnesty is given to those illegals that are already here without securing the borders, what is there to stop more illegals from entering the U.S.? Secure the borders first and then we can talk about what to do with the ones that are here now illegally.

If subsidies are given to those energy sources that are already polluting without internalizing their external costs, what is there to stop more people from polluting? Create a system for mitigating the effects of fossil fuel extraction first and then we can talk about what to do with our remaining fossil fuel deposits.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 22, 2011 9:36 PM
Comment #317804

KAP,
Although securing the borders effects more than illegals coming here to look for work, I do not understand why we do not organizations who are willing to work with our State Dept. in order to design a Workers Program for those in Central America who want to come to this country in order to find employment.

For it seems to me that everyobe would win. First, the U.S. Employer would be helped by the fact they could have a legal resource to access the population. Second, our border secuity would no longer need to waste their few resources tracking down those who are involved in Human Trafficing. Thrid, The American Citizenry would be helped by knowing the backgrounds of those in their community using the program. Fourth, the Citizenry of Central America would not only save the thousands they spend now in attempting to come to America, but their families would know that they have arranged safe passage in and out of the country.

Yes, I do believe America does need to secure our borders before we can even have a discussion on what to do about replacing the Baby Boomers who are now retiring. However, I do not beieve that should stop us from figuring out how we can deal with those who are here illegally when they are only guilty of breaking a minor law.

And gence, here is were I have a problem with the right on the issue. For treating the illegals like they are so bad of person, but doing nothing to stop the employers who exploit these workers IMHO is just plain wrong. And why the can scream all they want, until they are ready to provide stricyer laws for those who hire this population than they shouldn’t blame The Player, but blame The Game.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 9:38 PM
Comment #317805

Dude, If his voice is honest so is Beck’s.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 9:50 PM
Comment #317806

PS Dude I forgot Rush’s

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 9:51 PM
Comment #317807

Henry, They broke our laws by comming here illegally. Looking after our own should be priority one, beside what is so bad in rounding them up and sending them back to their own country, except for the fact that some keep comming back, I find nothing wrong with that. Cross over illegally into Mexico and find out how they treat you, I bet you change your tune about how illegals are treated here.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 10:08 PM
Comment #317808

“Dude, If his voice is honest so is Beck’s.”

Why KAP why on earth would you think that it is an all or nothing deal? If one is so are they all is illogical when talking about human beings. Prove your point, show us the overwhelming evidence you have that would give us reason to consider KO in the same way as someone proven to use misinformation half truths and outright lies like Beck and Limbaugh.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 22, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #317810

KAP,
If that is the case than how about throwing all of those who came here without papers back across the pond? For you sem to forget that for years (probably why before you were even born) America has been allowing the people from Central America to cross over our border in sreach of work and a better way of life. In fact, one of the reasons given the last time America had this converastion was that we shouldn’t require documentation. So I guess the first people who we need to put in jail and depot is ourselves.

No, if America was to put everyone in jail for a minor violation of the law than we would have no citizens. And why it is true we should look out for ourselve first. Are you ready to go without fresh vetables, clean hotels, and the millions of jobs they do for us. Because as the old saying goes. “There are some jobs American won’t do.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 10:36 PM
Comment #317811

J2T2, Like a lot of the other liberal media goons he attributed the Tucson shootings to, Palin, Angle, and FOX personnalities, and the tea party.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 10:37 PM
Comment #317812

Henry, Like I said priority one is to our own. Finding jobs for the people that are unemployed should be 1st, when that is done then we can go back to giving work permits to those from Central America. Henry if I had to I would shovel s—t to feed my family. As for those who don’t want to do the job STARVE.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 10:44 PM
Comment #317813

KAP,
Fair enough; however, convince the guy seating at the top of the hill. For he don’t care if you strave. In fact, he don’t even want to see you work because it is easier to deal with this population than those of us who think we deserve a job just because we are Americans.

And if you think that is a joke. Go back a few years and see what Conservatives were saying when Democrats took that same stance. No, even today 40 years later whole factories in Iowa use those from Central America instead of hiring the Farmers. So, unless you are willing to go without these jobs being done or see a huge increase in the cost of things the make than we are going to have to deal with a huge unskilled labor market which has given America a lower stabdard of living thanks to President Reagan and Congress.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2011 11:26 PM
Comment #317814

One solution Henry, those who are laid off have to do some type of community work in order to get their unemployment. If it’s farm work then the Farm owner pays the government a certain percentage of his profits instead of taxs. Like the famous words of one of the best Democrats JFK ” Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” to many people believe the country owes them a living, time to squash that idea.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2011 11:43 PM
Comment #317815

KAP,
Nice try, but unless you wany the wrath of the government taking over farming from the corporations and private citizen than a “Community Work Program” won’t do. For while I agree that people who are unemployment does need to do community works as part of a way to earn their checks; however, I worry that both corporations and unions will see it as a threat from our government again.

For did you know that is why we have people doing nothing and only having to go look for employment twice a week? For it was in the 70’s that the Bright Ones of the Time decided it was better to pay people to do nothing than have them move to different areas of the state or country. Something to do with them not wanting to loss their workforce in the community if I remember right.

No, thanks to the need for low wages and unskilled labor America is going to have to deal with this rooster. And why we can try and blame one and other for the problem. The fact that this Issue has roots that date back to the 1800’s and is part of Americas’ Culture and Heritage means we must respect the rest of our citizens. Because it will not be what you or I want, but what can you and I live with.

BTW, sorry for the spelling, my finders just don’t want to work today.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 23, 2011 12:17 AM
Comment #317816

Henry, Like I said if people want to work they will. If they are forced to do meanial labor to get a government handout they won’t like it so they will get a job even if it means flipping burgers at McDonalds. Stop the government handouts or at least limit them and people will find work. To be honest with you I do not feel sorry for anyone who relies on the government for support.

Posted by: KAP at January 23, 2011 12:36 AM
Comment #317817

KAP,
How does unemployment Insurance related to a government handout? First, an employer is required to pay for the insurance as part of an employees benefit package. Second, an employee can only collecy on unemployment if he or she qualifies (varies state to state and job to job). Thrid, the only reason the government is involved is because it is the insurer of last resort.

So I’m not sure where you learned it was a government handout; nonetheless, like workers comp. it is heavily regulated and strictly enforced. And why the history only dates back to the 1970’s, you will have to take it up with your parents on why they allowed the program to be set up the way it works. For why you can blame it on the poor souls who were hussling in the streets to make money any way they could in order to feed their families, but considering “The Corporation’ could and can still not ensure every American the opportunity to have gainful employment when and where the Government can and does. I think you will find it was and is just “A Sign of the Times.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 23, 2011 12:59 AM
Comment #317818

BTW; 1875, excluding what I know about the time when CA was becoming a state. So I do believe we have a whole lot of work to do if we plan to solve the problem in our lifetime.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 23, 2011 1:04 AM
Comment #317820

KAP,

Nope. He attributed the bad vibes to himself and other pundits. He apologized for the one time he may have stepped over the violentspeak himself. He did not blame the shootings in Tucson on anyone, but believed that all the hate filled rhetoric may have contributed to the acceptance of violence as a solution to problems in America. That is not in and of itself pointing fingers at anyone. There is a huge gulf between Beck and his wrathful diatribes and Olbermann who mostly points out flaws and lies in other’s rhetoric.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 23, 2011 7:06 AM
Comment #317823

Marysdude what gall!! KAP’s not interested in facts, that destroys his defense of Beck and Limbaugh. He can avoid the truth when he is able to lump them all together and then make false claims with no need to back his statement up with facts.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2011 10:47 AM
Comment #317825

Warped Reality writes; “Please don’t talk about football. I’m still depressed from the Patriots’ loss last week.”

For you Warped I am sure that loss was at least in the same magnitude as the last election.

GO PACK

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2011 12:46 PM
Comment #317826

J2T2 & Dude Just finished googleing lies of Kieth Olberman and found 199,000 results. So I’m pretty sure you can find the same for Beck and Rush.

Posted by: KAP at January 23, 2011 1:30 PM
Comment #317827

Conservativethinker-
They’re just such horrible people, aren’t they?

I personally believe in a creator who is so far beyond us in his ability to think things things out, and so beyond us in his power, that he can create life simply by setting the laws of nature just so, so that life naturally emerges.

To you, life coming about from the mud and pre-existing organic chemicals is the definition of debasement. You hold onto a creation where you were simply wished into being in an instant.

Me? I look at a creation which spans billions of years, which creates complexity, life and intelligence by the mind-blowingly subtle processes of chemistry and physics, which has us put in the humble position of being just another evolved creature, on a world that is not at the center of the universe, which may be one of billions just like it…

And that strikes me as the world a true God would create. It makes God powerful, mysterious, and beyond us, if he can manage things that way. It shows a God that is worthy.

And it puts us in our place. All we can do, we can only do because he sets the laws of physics so it can be done. All we can ever be, we are as a result of how he made us. God understands our limited natures, and that is why he reaches out to us. We, unfortunately, can sometimes get so caught up in obsessing over our failures and our shortcomings, that we give into them, rather than learn how to overcome them. We can also do the same sort of out of control fault-finding with others.

The value of what Jesus taught us lies in what he tells us about recognizing the possibilities of Good, and therefore God, within us, rather than lament how horrible we are, and wallow in our error. We can’t do everything right, or do what we do right perfectly. We cannot prevent all bad things from happening. We will fail, we will suffer, we will find ourselves in situations that are incredibly unfair.

What Jesus tells us is that it will be alright, in the end, that we can be better than merely the potential of our faults, and that we can be better to others, and they better to us, than our current attitudes or theirs would allow us to believe. We can be better people, smarter people, wiser people than we would believe possible.

How’s that for Pessimism? :-)

Some liberals believe there is no afterlife. Similarly, some conservatives believe the same. There have always been such people in this country in good times and bad. Even some of our founding Fathers were such, and they built in the freedoms that would allow people to be so.

And God gave them that freedom, too. He does not force belief, and if he, in his wisdom does not force it, you have no business forcing it yourself, for when people force a religion on a person, it is not God’s grace that gets them to convert, but that person’s threats and abuse, and it is to that person that the fear and respect that should be Gods goes.

I see no point in disparaging people for not believing in God, though I believe myself. I was once that way. How can I criticize? How can I condemn the person I once was, the person who had honest questions about God, Jesus, and everything else? It was meeting people who were Christian, but did not have to be so at my expense that lead me towards accepting Jesus as my savior.

Harangues like yours were part of what always kept me back. I had to decide that the hypocrisy of the hypocrites out there, who, though unforgiving, claimed to share God’s gospel of forgiveness, who though unwilling to confront the greed and social injustice of the world, claimed to know Jesus, did not respresent God’s true beliefs. I had to forgive God for what I felt his followers screwed up in delivering his message. Once I understood things that way, I felt free to be a Christian.

Yes, some people hate God. Some people look at the horrors that people do (especially in the name of God), the disasters that strike folks, and decide that God has it out for us, or that if God did exist, God would be one screwed-up deity. I had to leap the hurdle there by deciding that there God’s understanding of what was happening, and the fate of those who were killed and who were made to suffer was much more sophisticated than I believed. A belief in the Resurrection was helpful here- those who suffered would be comforted, those who died would be raised.

But still, that wasn’t simple, or short as a process.

But let me be blunt. Your picture of what Liberals are like is distorted. It’s painted by people who want to use your religion to turn you against people. Those people betray the Gospel, whether they realize it or not, because their use of it is turned towards breaking what God would have us repair, wounding where God would have us heal.

Nothing of what you write in that first paragraph reflects what Liberals are, or what they understand about themselves. It only reflects what seems to be your rage, your fear, your loathing against them. That’s unfortunate. They are people mostly like yourself, Americans, just like yourself, people who, just like yourself would hate to see their country attacked, their nation’s economy sent to ruin, their society corrupted and sent into decline. Understand that, and you understand Liberal’s motivations better. They are not villains in some third-grader’s melodrama, played out with stuff animals. They are simply people whose view of the world is different, and that, by not as much as you might think.

z-
Lies? You haven’t even proved what I said untrue. If what I’m saying is untrue, that our domestic resources are in decline, then tell me, why are oil companies going through the expense and the difficulty of getting oil where they are now?

If we could do without oil imports, don’t you think they would have? Show OPEC the middle finger of energy independence?

If we could do without drilling at extreme depths, don’t you think we would have? Gone for shallow oil, instead of the kind which causes such incredible disasters when it bursts containment?

If you want some perspective, understand this: Peak Oil isn’t some environmentalist’s concept, it was a concept born of the mind of an Oil Company Scientist, M. King Hubbert.

Oil is finite, and so are oil fields, and the major oil giants knew this quite some time ago.

Even if you tap the oil fields in the vulnerable areas we Democrats are trying to protect, that still won’t buy you much time, nor much reduction in expense. Just the fact that you’ve got to go deeper is going to cost people more for gas.

But hey, because a liberal is saying it, you say that’s wrong.

You don’t even bother to refute the facts here in any substantial form. You just declare them Liberal talking points, as if that decides anything. It may for you, but what about an independent who doesn’t automatically switch off their brain when that phrase gets uttered?

Or the Democrat who’s arguing with you who finds it annoying that you think an ad hominem insult against his politics can actually win an argument against actual, argued fact.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 23, 2011 2:50 PM
Comment #317831

Dr. Daughtery Ph D. in Theology now gives us his interpretation of God’s master plan. It is not based on his knowledge of the Scripture, because he does not believe the Word of God is really the Word of God. Like most liberal’s, Dr. Daughtery knowledge is based upon his own feelings.

“I personally believe in a creator who is so far beyond us in his ability to think things things out, and so beyond us in his power, that he can create life simply by setting the laws of nature just so, so that life naturally emerges.

To you, life coming about from the mud and pre-existing organic chemicals is the definition of debasement. You hold onto a creation where you were simply wished into being in an instant.

Me? I look at a creation which spans billions of years, which creates complexity, life and intelligence by the mind-blowingly subtle processes of chemistry and physics, which has us put in the humble position of being just another evolved creature, on a world that is not at the center of the universe, which may be one of billions just like it…”

I would like Dr. Daugherty to explain why God could not create all things instantly? You see Dr. Daugherty Ph D. in Theological studies, if you really believed the Word of God; you would know these verses:

“Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

“Isa 48:3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.”

The word “suddenly” is the Hebrew word “פּתאום”, pronounced “pith-ome” and meaning: instantly: - straightway, sudden (-ly).

“But let me be blunt. Your picture of what Liberals are like is distorted.”

Perhaps Dr. Daughtery could explain the liberal’s distorted picture of Conservatives? Or do they have one?

“Nothing of what you write in that first paragraph reflects what Liberals are, or what they understand about themselves.”

Actually Dr. Daugherty, I believe the first paragraph more closely reflects you than any other liberals on WB.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 23, 2011 8:31 PM
Comment #317833

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
— Galileo Galilei

SD never said God couldn’t create us in an instant, but rather that God didn’t do it that way. Creation is billions of years old, as evidenced by physics, geology, biology and other disciplines.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 23, 2011 9:35 PM
Comment #317834

conservativethinker-
Well, if you want to have a real mind-twister, you could ask yourself whether God can create instantly a world that has billions of years of history. Being infinite, and beyond time, I believe God could do that very thing. Space and time are both his to command, and the shape of the universe.

He could have just done that a second ago, and we, creatures of the natural world, would not know the difference!

But, how does one verify that? The answer is, you can’t. No more than a NPC character in a video game can verify the programmed nature of its world. God is even more beyond us than that.

Now, you want to consider the bible an infallible document, and that those who take it word for word as literal hold an infallible opinion. I have seen enough of those folks disagree, learned enough about translation, about the fact that there are multiple translations that don’t agree, about the difficulty with translating between two different languages with different idioms and different ways of expressing ideas to believe that nothing perfect remains in the Bible, once everything is said and done.

But I don’t think something has to be perfect to be useful, to lead us towards God and good. I don’t think credibility in any work rests on perfection. If it did, then there would be nothing written in the language of man that would mean anything.

I think the Bible is the word of God, as filtered through millenia and centuries worth of history, as filtered through stories meant to lead us poor, imperfect creatures to understand the perfection and splendor of God.

When I was in college, and I was learning about the book of Exodus, the professor put up an interesting theory. Now many people put up a theory that the real location of the crossing is the Red Sea. Others say it’s “The Reed Sea”. My professor, though, said that the reeds in question grew on the Nile, so that couldn’t be the likely translation in his view. The complication, of course, is that Hebrew is written without vowels, so the same symbols can stand for different words.

Then he gave his alternative translation: Chaos Waters. He then went into this explanation of how the seas were considered the primeval matter out of which the land was made, so God being able to manipulated and force his will upon these waters was a sign of his supreme omnipotence. What the other Gods in ancient mythology were born of, God controlled.

And that struck me with an insight.

History is funny, in the old days. We take for granted now the continuity of records, the cornucopia of different recorded perspectives. So much is recorded, so much preserved in literal form. But things were different then, especially if you considered that most people would be illiterate, and many would be subsistence farmers who would never venture more than five miles from home.

Word of mouth is how most people heard news, heard history, heard the word of God, as it was. People’s memories are imperfect, and even the historians of old were not half so rigorous as they are now. There was simply a different standard for those times. In a way, it was much more in keeping with what we’re naturally used to. Writing is a very, very recent invention in the course of our species’ existence.

Think analog, as opposed to digital. Less emphasis was placed on the fidelity of information, more on the fidelity of meaning.

So, from a storyteller’s perspective, is it important to get all the little words right everytime? No. But if you’re conveying the legends of the people, the stories that convey the meaning, that back the rituals of their society? Ah, then the important part is the feel of the story, and what it says on its deeper level.

That, I think, is what I think God wanted to preserve: the meaning and the feel of what went on. It’s more important, in my opinion, that we understand what the person writing down that story meant, than that we understand the events that are it’s source as literal events. What those events and stories meant to people is more important, for the purposes of the bible, than what literally occured that set the writing in motion.

One could even see God taking a banal, ordinary story, and over the evolution of its passage from one storyteller to another, developing a greater meaning that the original story did not have.

And did God not enlighten people through stories not meant to be taken as superficially true? When he talked about Wedding feasts, did there have to be an actual one where things happened just as he said? Or could he be trying to relate a complex point that is not so easily conveyed just by plainly, literally telling them?

My belief is that God knows how to tell a story, and convey a message, so as to efficiently convey rich meaning, meaning that is robust to the errors that transmitting it through human language and human culture brings about.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 23, 2011 9:36 PM
Comment #317835

Conservativethinker and Stephen,
As children we were asked which came first the chicken or the egg. And why today I recognize that still baffles many, the answer being that both was created at the same time makes what is real even harder to understand. For how is it possible that an egg which comes from the chicken be created at the same instant as the chicken when we all know that it takes months after brith before the chicken can lay its first egg?

Well, what use to be out of eyesight for eons is the fact that the chicken during the process of being formed (created) is equipped with all the eggs she will lay in her lifetime. Thus, is the same with many things we do not understand and the laws of physics to date cannot answer.

Yes, even with the laws of physics Man still has a hard time answering how it is possible that this happens over that. And while have been the answers for eons I am amazed at the response I get from students and teachers of the subject when I ask them to explain such a simple act as audio feedback. For why they can explain how the sound waves meet and viberate against each other. They cannot tell me why such a thing does not always happen.

But more important, knowing that it is not the speakers which cause the violent reaction of the sound waves crashing against one and other since even turning the volume up or down at the time will not stop the noise. Asking them were the Snap comes from given that it is not created by the speakers makes them unable to answer since the laws of physics have not advanced that far.

So why you stumble to explain how it is possible for God to create that which has taken billions of years to evolve, ask yourself one simple question. Why is there air? For though there are thousands of reasons why it exist, not one begins to explain the reason for its existance. Yet knowing it has been around since the begining of Earth and that without it Man & Nature could not exist. Who created such a thing that not even Freewill can destory?

For it is the same with Americas’ Politics, why there are so many things we can’t or won’t explain. As each generation evolves with a better understanding of the world and universe we live in. So does our ability to explain how things can be created instantly out of what we thought was once thin air.

Because why it is now possible to explain how the chicken and egg was created at the same time, only those among us with the Freewill to learn such a concept and recognize that there is no magical operation the chicken goes through in order to lay an egg can evolve in understanding how something created a billion years ago can somehow appear instantly today.

Because who among us 40 years ago knew it was possible to create Unlimited Power or realize how easy it is to make every Human on Earth economically viable and financially independent? Yet, our will still not waiting on the Snap to happen in order to see it in the Real World?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 23, 2011 11:45 PM
Comment #317836

Royal Flush,
Seems we split our picks; even tough I am still wondering when the Bears are going to show up for their game. Anyway, I do believe it was a good Sunday for Football.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 23, 2011 11:51 PM
Comment #317839

Mr.Daughtery, “Lies”?

As CT has said, the left are pessimists. You say I am lying and you offer proof by quoting a doom and gloomer like M. King Hubbert. His theories are decades old and have been revised dozens of times. The fact is, neither you nor anyone else knows how much oil remains. We have oil pockets that Hubbert never even conceived of, and I might say; the key problem to America’s dependency on foreign oil is the left’s continual attacks and blocking the use of fossil fuels through environmental policies. While mush heads (those who attend today’s colleges), continue their “sky is falling” approach to drilling for oil, the Chinese are buying up all the mineral and fossil fuel rights they can. While the left, including obama, blocks drilling for oil in the Gulf; the Chinese are tapping into our own oil via horizontal drilling from Cuba. I have come to the conclusion; the goal of the left is to destroy America.

You say, “If we could do without oil imports, don’t you think they would have? Show OPEC the middle finger of energy independence?”

No, I believe we are doing exactly what the left wants us to do. Tell me Mr. Daughtery, why aren’t you crying about China’s increased use of fossil fuels. Why do you and the socialist liberals on the left want to protect China and slam the USA?

Posted by: Z at January 24, 2011 9:07 AM
Comment #317840

Z,
You are making this to easy. First America does not own the Gulf of Mexico. So how can China be stealing from us that which we do not own or are entitled to?

Second, you are labeling Liberals as pessimists, but it is you and other conservatives who insist that drilling for oil is the only way to solve our energy problem. When in fact, it has been known from the 1970’s that there is not enough oil undr Americas’ soil to feed our electric plants, power our vrhicles, and produce the everyday products we use.

Yet, when faced with a viable solution you turn and cry that it is impossible. For how can solar and wind replace the energy source our parents and grandparents have depended on for the last 100 years? And though I realize that some of the fear comes from the Electricity and Oil Companies who worry that once Americans realize that solar and wing cannot only replace oil as Americas’ primary source of energy, but do it in such a manner that Americans no longer have the monthly expense of electricity and fuel as well as provide a simple income seperate from The Corporation.

So who is being pessimistic when we already know China and other nations are already using these renewable energy sources to meet their energy needs? Or could it be that you and other conservatives don’t realize what making America Energy Independent can really mean since it is easier to believe the Status Quo that somehow Americans must pay for the energy they use?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 24, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #317841

z-
I never said you were lying. I said you were wrong. I offered a man whose predictions about the decline of supply in the US turned out to be right.

Even if he didn’t know about other supplies we’re now finding, that doesn’t change one fact: that supplies of oil are finite, while demand for it has always exceeded supply.

Again, I would ask you why they’re drilling in places like the Macondo prospect, almost a mile deep, with all the expense and the trouble that comes with it, if they didn’t believe that more accessible resources were available.

You don’t have to be a pessimist to acknowledge that something is not going to work out for the best.

The easily accessible oil has been accessed. The planet’s not renewing that fuel source at any decent rate. Either we plan now for our alternatives, or we plan for the obsolesence of our economy. Simple as that. Me? I’m an optimist. I think we can replace our current energy economy with a new one. I think we can figure it out. But we can figure it out while we still have the cushion of fossil fuels to take up the slack, or we can take it up when the fossil fuel vehicle’s tires have gone flat, and we’re feeling every bump in the road.

You can get your own blood boiling with your silly stereotypes about liberals, but I think what we want is pretty much what most people want: an affordable, sustainable energy future. Oil cannot offer that forever. We need to choose to change our behavior, or necessity will change it later on, with less mercy towards our economy and our way of life.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2011 11:18 AM
Comment #317842

Henry, Google “North American oil deposits” you may be enlightened.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2011 11:21 AM
Comment #317843

z-
And about the Chinese? Let’s worry about ourselves first. If we make it more competitive to be energy efficient, to rely on alternative fuel sources and renewable energy, they’ll have to follow suit to keep pace. They’re doing it too. You want to know why? Because they look at a billion Chinese, and they know they can’t sustain this with current technology.

They also know that the people who make these products will reap the rewards.

If you want us to be less than competitive against the Chinese, by all means, pursue the energy source of the past. Be like those people who were worried about how high the horsecrap would be piled, if cities kept growing.

Really, what Republican policy is about these days is coddling the special interests who don’t want to have to face the realities of the marketplace. There’s nothing truly free market about their policies, not when you look at what they actually do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2011 11:24 AM
Comment #317844

KAP,
Why I realize America has oil reserves, are you aware the only reason we have them today is because our Elders of the 70’s thought it better that we save then for future generations since the resource is used for more than fueling our power plants and cars?

Hence, the problem I have with those who only want see drilling is the only answer to our energy problem. For why stripping the world of her oil reserves can be done in less than 20 years if not sooner. Knowing we have products that can be no other way except with oil I do believe that we should also protect those reserves for future generations.

Besides, one of the strongest reason IMHO for pushing Americas’ Commerce and Industry toward using renewable energy is the very fact that Americans can eliminate not only their energy expenses, but help eliminate the Taxpayers energy expenses.

And why I realize that will hurt the oil companies bottom line as well as cause many stockholders to deinvest in the oil industry. Given a choice between spending over $50.00 per 300 miles or driving those same 300 miles and actually turning a profit. Which one would you pick?

Yes, considering Americans had to give up thei Muscle Cars of the 60’s and 70’s because our parents and grandparents could not figure out how electric cars could be built to be faster and safer. Are we going to make the same mistake? For if you care to do your homework on the last time Americans were asked to choice between Electricity or gas, you will find that the only reason oil was choosen over electricity is due to our inability to understand how electricity works.

So you see drilling might help a few Americans stay wealthy; however, oil can never make every American economically viable and financially independent. And why the jury is still out on if we will allow solar and wind give every American the opportunity to become econmically viable and financially independent why ensure Americas’ Connerce and Industry has a very long term resource of cheap energy. Just the fact it can save Americans the burden from having to pay for our Local, State, and Federal Government energy needs for as far as the eye can see makes it IMHO a very good investment.

Posted by: Henry Sclatman at January 24, 2011 12:27 PM
Comment #317845

Henry, Until we can have renewable resources readily avaliable and cheaper then oil we need oil. As long as we keep buying from outside sources we are making ourselves vulnerable to their whims. You look at places like Venezuala, who have no love lost for the U.S. and would like to stick it to us every chance they get and are part of OPEC, yet they sell gas to their citizens, the last time I saw for $0.25 a gallon. Yet here we got oil resources that are untapped and could possibly keep us going for at least 50 years or more. In that time this country could possibly refine the renewable energy resources that would make them practical and reliable. Right now electric cars are only practical for use on short trips. I drive to see my daughter and grandkids in W.V. a 240 mile trip one way and when I go to pick up them up to bring them up to Cleveland I do it all in one day where an electric car would not be able to do it without having to stop and recharge unless there is a small gas engine on board to run a generator to recharge. Then we still have to rely on fossil fuels to run the small engine. The point is we need to be more independent and quit sending money to people that hate us, let them eat their oil.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2011 1:06 PM
Comment #317846

Stephany, the left is stupid, aren’t they?

“Even if he didn’t know about other supplies we’re now finding, that doesn’t change one fact: that supplies of oil are finite, while demand for it has always exceeded supply.
Again, I would ask you why they’re drilling in places like the Macondo prospect, almost a mile deep, with all the expense and the trouble that comes with it, if they didn’t believe that more accessible resources were available.
You don’t have to be a pessimist to acknowledge that something is not going to work out for the best.
The easily accessible oil has been accessed. The planet’s not renewing that fuel source at any decent rate. Either we plan now for our alternatives, or we plan for the obsolesence of our economy. Simple as that. Me? I’m an optimist. I think we can replace our current energy economy with a new one. I think we can figure it out. But we can figure it out while we still have the cushion of fossil fuels to take up the slack, or we can take it up when the fossil fuel vehicle’s tires have gone flat, and we’re feeling every bump in the road.
You can get your own blood boiling with your silly stereotypes about liberals, but I think what we want is pretty much what most people want: an affordable, sustainable energy future. Oil cannot offer that forever. We need to choose to change our behavior, or necessity will change it later on, with less mercy towards our economy and our way of life.”

“Finite” is a broad term. Oil supplies ARE finite, but you have absolutely no idea how much oil is in the world. The estimates change with the seasons. Why don’t you give me an exact figure of how much oil is in the earth(worldwide), and then tell me exactly when we are going to run out.

The Macondo prospect is simply one spot where BP was allowed to drill until a socialist president shut it down. Why use the term “Macondo Prospect”; why not just say Gulf oil, are you trying to impress us with your ability to Google “Macondo Prospect”? You guys on the left are such elitist phonies.

You stupid Sh**, the Chinese are drilling into pockets of oil that we could be drilling into, and were drilling into, before the socialist president shut it down. Yes, no problem with China using fossil fuel, no problem with the Chinese pumping tons of pollution into the air, but let’s shut the USA down. It’s people like you, a miniscule part of America, that is out to destroy us.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/22/business/fi-china-oil22

“SLANT DRILLING

There are new reports out circulating that Chinese firms are planning to slant drill off the Cuban coast near the Florida Straits, tapping into U.S. oil reserves that are estimated at 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion barrels. This compares with 4 billion to 10 billion barrels believed to be beneath the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, where drilling is held up in Congress due to the objections of environmental groups which warn of endangering caribou…”

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_starts_oil_drilling.html

Posted by: Z at January 24, 2011 1:31 PM
Comment #317847

KAP,
Why I don’t sell cars. Buy a Volt from GM. However, if you really want an electric car that can actually put money in your back pocket than you’ll have to wait for the Bad Boys of Detriot to figure out how to power an electric car by the man-made wind created as we drive down the road.

Or better yet, build one yourself. For though it does sound strange in theory it actually works easy. In fact on the way home tonight try holding your hand (with fingers together) and see what happens at speeds over 35 mph. For why I am not sur of the exact angle the wind will attempt to take your arm off; however, intaking the air coming into the front of the car and narrowing down to a 2 inch pipe does wonders.

So before you ask me why I have not built one and put it on the market, let me ask you this. Are you ready for your 16 year old son to have an electric car that will pay him to drive up and down Main Street. Because if I gave one to you at that age, would you have ever went home?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 24, 2011 1:45 PM
Comment #317848

Henry, @ $50,000 for a little electric car, no thank you. When they can build them and sell them for around $10,000 then we can talk. You are talking theories we used your theory to pump water from under coke shakers when I worked at a steel mill. When these and other ideas are perfected and practicle and reasonablly priced then and only then will people accept them.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2011 1:54 PM
Comment #317849

P.S. Henry we used steam instead of air in that pump at the mill.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2011 1:56 PM
Comment #317850

KAP,
$50,000 for a car? With a tax credit of $7,500 the price for a Volt comes in around $35,000. And why that is more expensive than your $10,000 car depending on your driving needs the difference in mpg will quickly eat up any savings.

Now, I realize you might think that a cheap gas burning car is byeer than an electric hybrid or that it is impossible to quickly reduce the cost of this new electric cars; however, the same argument was made in the 70’s when America went from leaded to unleaded gas. In fact, people went absolutely nuts when they found out they were going to have to pay 5-10 cents per gallon more. However, in less than 10 years almost every car and truck on the road ran on unleaded fuel and we going strong ever since.

However, you still haven’t answered my questions. For do you want another 40 years of paying for fuel which now will go over $5.00/gallon or would you like to own a car that would pay you for driving up and down the road? For the price of electric cars will quickly come down once we have the political will to to stop burning a resource that future generations will need.

For if the truth was to be told, in the 70’s there was a group of people who wanted to strip America of all her oil in the hope that doing so would cause an economic meltdown. And why it sounds impossible, now that there are safe gaurds against it. How quickly do you think the oil we now have in reserve can be sold on the global market considering you can’t limit it for sale here in the U.S. only (check out what start the Oil Embrago of 1973)?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 24, 2011 2:27 PM
Comment #317851

Stephen, if you consider the Bible to be nothing more than a history book and fallible; then we have nothing further to discuss. The only thing we know about God, His creation, His plan, His son, His plan of salvation, of Heaven and of Hell; come from God’s Word. If you do not believe God’s Word then the only thing left is your opinion and opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one. For you to write platitudes about what you believe is nothing more than a fart in the wind. Believe me Stephen, much greater minds than you have tried to interpret God. I feel sorry for you; you have no hope. You only have what your little mind can dream up. I believe the Bible is God’s Word and that it is infallible. I have hope that goes beyond your ability to reason.

“I think the Bible is the word of God, as filtered through millenia and centuries worth of history, as filtered through stories meant to lead us poor, imperfect creatures to understand the perfection and splendor of God.”

What does this BS mean? This sounds like something you world read in a Chinese fortune cookie.
“When I was in college, and I was learning about the book of Exodus, the professor put up an interesting theory. Now many people put up a theory that the real location of the crossing is the Red Sea. Others say it’s “The Reed Sea”. My professor, though, said that the reeds in question grew on the Nile, so that couldn’t be the likely translation in his view. The complication, of course, is that Hebrew is written without vowels, so the same symbols can stand for different words.
Then he gave his alternative translation: Chaos Waters. He then went into this explanation of how the seas were considered the primeval matter out of which the land was made, so God being able to manipulated and force his will upon these waters was a sign of his supreme omnipotence. What the other Gods in ancient mythology were born of, God controlled.
And that struck me with an insight.”

Great, a professor pumping little mush heads full of mush. Stephen, one of these days, you will draw your last breath and your heart will beat one last time, which we all face. But on that day, you will be in for a rude awakening. Perhaps you have heard of Jonathan Edwards; some of his sermons used to be included in American Literature college textbooks. He preached a sermon called “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”; it was a literary classic. In paraphrasing part of the sermon (it has been a long time since I read it), he said we (mankind) are walking upon a thread in life and the flames of a literal Hell lick at the thread and only the grace and mercy of God keeps the thread from burning in two and keeps us from falling headlong into a devils Hell. He preachers and deacons and the people in attendance cried out to Edwards, “what must we do to be saved and escape the torments of Hell”? It is not your opinion that will give you eternal life; your opinion means nothing. It is God’s Word, which “liveth and abideth forever”.

Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


This verse flies in the face of what you believe.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 24, 2011 2:48 PM
Comment #317852

Henry, the Chevy Volt cost $50,000.00 plus tax. Subtracting $7500 leaves $42,000.00 plus tax. The batteries have to be replaced every few years at today’s cost of $10,000.00 and below are the stats for MPG.

Q: What is the driving range of the Chevy Volt?

A: The car has been designed to drive from 25 to 50 miles on pure electricity stored in the battery from overnight home charging. The actual range will vary depending on temperature, terrain, and driving style.
After that the gas engine will kick in and allow the car to be driven an additional 344 miles on a full tank (9.3 gallons) of gas.

Q: How many miles per gallon will the Chevy Volt get?

A: A bit of a trick question. For the first 35 miles it will get infinite mpg, because no gas will be burned. When the generator starts, the car will get 37 mpg (35 mpg city/40 mpg highway) thereafter. One can calculate the average mpg per for any length drive starting with a full battery:

http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/


Buy a VW Rabbit diesel.

Posted by: Z at January 24, 2011 3:12 PM
Comment #317853

Condervativethinker,
Go back to the 60’s when Religion had to admit that the Bible was created by Man. For how, whom and why it was wrote is taught in college, I doubt if you want to get into a debate with one of those students. Because what you take as Gods’ Word, is actually written by Man. And that is something you cannot disprove.

No, that is not to say that the Bible is a book of lies, in fact it is the exact opposite. For when it is quote that “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away” can you tell us to which words Luke is talking about?

And if you think it is wrong to question the Word of God than ask your Minister or go read the last book of the old testiment. For that is what the Bible is all about. A testiment of what those who lived a few thousand years ago found to be Self-Evident.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 24, 2011 3:15 PM
Comment #317854

KAP-
And now they have the Chevy Volt, which can do pretty much that. Hell, you could get a car like mine, a hybrid, and do nearly the entire trip on a couple of tanks of gas. What I would say to you is that the technology is developing, and unlike fossil-fuel technology, the prospects for such technology are open ended. Electric cars and plug-in hybrids don’t care what’s on the other end of the plug. You can exchange wind, solar, and other green energy sources for the coal plants and other dirty power generation schemes, and even if you don’t, they’ll still be greener than using gasoline.

What you can get nowadays, is what I got: a Honda Insight. It costs about 20,000, and gets about 40 mpg. It’s not a plug-in, but it is a hybrid.

z-
The drilling offshore Florida is not being done by China. They’re only developing resources onshore.

Cuba’s state oil company, Cupet, has issued exploration contracts to companies from India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway, according to diplomats.

But many oil companies from those countries have expressed reservations about how to turn potential crude oil into product. Cuba doesn’t have the refinery capacity, and the Cuban embargo prohibits the oil from coming to U.S. refineries, Pinon said.

The most recent high-profile contract with Cuba went to Brazil’s state oil company, Petrobras. Cuba inked a contract with Petrobras in January, allowing the Brazilian energy giant to search for oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico that are within Cuba’s sovereign territory. Brazil’s foreign minister, Celso Amorim, traveled to Cuba last month and talked up the oil business, along with a joint venture between Cuba and Petrobras to produce lubricants.

Most of Cuba’s oil comes from Venezuela, with whom it shares an ideological bent and geographical proximity. Brazil’s growing role in Cuba’s energy sector is significant because Petrobras has been involved in some of the world’s few discoveries of new and large oilfields.

In other words, the slant drilling claim is just crap.

If a Chinese company is drilling for oil in our waters, they’re paying us for the privilege, one way or another, because those claims are leased from the Federal Government. They are also doing so under our regulations, since, as you folks remind us, the oil companies are heavily regulated. So, if all the other international companies are getting hit by Obama’s regulations, so are they.

More to the point, let me ask you something: was last years disaster not severe enough for you? We’re trying to create a halfway decent policy here for keeping that incredible disaster a one-shot deal, but as with the Economic crisis, your people seem to want to forget it ever happened. Well, that’s a pretty tall pile of **** to sweep under the rug, if you ask me, and it’s not as if people won’t notice.

Oh, I thought of another thing: the oil doesn’t stay here, contrary to what you might think. It will get sold on the world market, rather than be used to ween us off foreign oil. Trying to get America off foreign oil by going hogwild drilling on our shores is only prolonging the inevitable. You think we’re just finding all these new sources because there’s just more and more oil all the time? No, I’ll tell you why: you’re hearing about new oil exploration in places that are more and more hostile, more and more expensive, and they’re going there because they oil that would be easy to get is getting consumed.

I keep a listen out for such things. They’re talking about offshored drilling off Greenland. Greenland, for crying out loud.

And the bottom of the Gulf is no less extreme a place. No human can operate in that area, unless they’re encased in a submersible. The big reason that it took so long to deal with that gusher on the bottom was that all the big operations had to be done by robot and ROV. It wasn’t like a location closer to shore, in shallow water, where you could send suit divers down to the bottom to plug the leak.

And the deeper you drill, the more dangerous it gets, because of the increased pressures that all that water and all that rock put on the the stuff going in and out of the pipe. The equipment and the projects get more expensive. The oil companies are not charities, they pass the price of all this to you and I.

As for the Macondo Prospect? I remembered it from the news articles I read, and so I used it as the place for the oil rig, since I couldn’t think of the proper geographical location. If it offends you that I used a non-obvious name for the location, that’s your problem. I don’t b**** at people for showing they got brains. It’s stupidity I have a problem with, not intelligence.

Speaking of that, I couldn’t help but notice the potshots. I try to be easygoing, but the next post with a personal insult will get junked.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2011 3:38 PM
Comment #317855

Z,
Considering the average American drives less than 20 miles a day and the 9.3 gallon gas tank is a lot less than the 15 gallon gas tank found on most cars today, yet both are designed to travel 300 miles. I do believe if one was to drive the full amount in each vehile than the savings of $6,570/yr ($3.00/gal) $8,760 ($4.00/gal) $10,980 ($5.00/gal) for the 6 gallon difference would surely make up the shortfalls.

As far as a VW diesel Rabbit, try burning used vegetable oil as the price of diesel will follow the price of gas.

What’s strange is how KAP and you seem to like the idea of having to pay for fuel. For the one thing you can do with an electric car that can’t be done by a gasoline or diesel car is use your home renewable energy generator to pay for your trips to and from work and play.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 24, 2011 3:45 PM
Comment #317856

Stephen & Henry, I have a 2000 Chevy Malibu which when driving on the Hwy. I get very good gas mileage. I can drive the entire trip to and from my home to my daughters home and use less then a tank and a half of gas. That’s 480 miles on 17 gals of gas. I am well satisfied. As I said when renewable energy sources and other options become more and more abundant and reliable and less costly then they are now then we can talk. When you plug in an all electric car you have to get the electricity from some where, if you plug it in at home your electric bill goes up if you plug in at a service area you still have to pay for the electricity used to charge the car and as yet we don’t know how much will be charged for that service. Until we come up with something that is feasible and reliable we are stuck with oil.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2011 4:12 PM
Comment #317857

Conservativethinker-
It’s odd that you would say, “we have nothing further to discuss.” If you truly see your position as right, why not try and persuade me? If God calls upon you to show love to your enemies, do good to those who do evil, to forgive those who sin, why not continue the discussion?

I believe the bible contains much in the way of wisdom, and not so disposably as your sentiments about me might lead you to believe. For example, the bible talks in First Corinthians about reasoning like a child when you are a child, but taking on greater reasoning as one is able.

That’s my sentiment. When our civilization was in its infancy, a text which spoke of stars, especially the sun, as great balls of gas fusing hydrogen, which spoke of a force called gravity aggregating stardust together as a planet wouldn’t have made sense. It’s hard enough getting people nowadays to understand this, with all the reference points we have. Imagine trying to sell that to a Palestinian or a Babylonian exile of the time of the Bible’s writing.

Genesis chapter one talks about God separating the waters from the waters, a formulation that only makes sense if you imagine water above the dome of the sky, as well as below the the ground, a common formulation for Mesopotamians who saw the world that way.

We obviously know that’s wrong. Beyond the dome of the sky is the hard vacuum of outer space, below is the rock and metal of the Earth’s Mantle and core. If you believe that God was trying to tell man what the world was literally like, then he was leading them astray.

But what if he was trying to do something else, like tell us that he made the universe in an orderly way? The way God makes the world in the first chapter of Genesis reflects a craftsman-like approach, rather than some of the creation myths that we see out of other cultures, like the Babylonians or the Norse, where the world is created from the slaughtered corpse of an enemy, and people are an afterthought or slaves of the Gods.

That is why I mean by filtered through stories. God wasn’t going to wait until we understood the universe properly, before he started telling us of his role in it, about how to live together with one another. Just as our fathers on earth instruct us with simplified versions of what become more elaborate and nuanced understandings of the world, I believe our Father in heaven started man off with a child’s version of how the world was made, since man was not ready to appreciate the true majesty, scale, and complexity of the world as it actually was.

The bible is an advanced, complicated work, featuring many different faces of God, many different challenging presentations of human nature. The principles offered forth, the questions made are valuable, divinely inspired in my opinion. And I don’t think the process of having to sort through all that, think through all that is wasted. Like children, we’re not just born, then quickly converted to adults. We grow, we are shaped by our world and our experiences. The experience of reading through the bible is not to be underestimated or neglected as part of one’s education as a Christian. I believe it is an important part of our religion, and that others are missing something with out it.

As for my fate? I am not as certain of yours or mine as you are of mine and yours. I believe in Jesus and his forgiveness, but I believe that’s up to him, and that though I might think I have passed the tests, Jesus might think otherwise.

I assume that what he wants me to do is to continually question the wisdom and the Godliness of my decisions, the value of my judgment. He doesn’t want me to stand pat as if I’ve unlocked it all, much less have me try to lord it over people. I believe God cares more what is in people’s hearts and what they do, than what religion they profess. I believe we have a more direct connection to God through our scripture, but that makes what God wants of us easier than for others. If others do it, uninstructed by Christians or the bible, though, I don’t think God forsakes what is in their hearts and in what they do.

I believe it is God who gives life, and who gives eternal life. You are right that my opinion doesn’t count in this instance. But I already would say that, as a matter of my own understanding of the faith. To me the horror of not making that connection, of being estranged from Christ, is that my belief is that when the last day comes, all will be resurrected, but those who come back who forsake God’s guidance will be irrevocably severed from him, with all the consequences thereof. If God gives us the ability to shape ourselves, and what’s around us, what nightmares, what madness would await those who have that power, but not his guidance, his wisdom? Imagine that in eternity, with no hope of death as a release.

That’s my conception of Hell: going mad, having that madness become you, become the world around you, and having that be your state of existence for eternity, without death as release.

If you think some 1700s preacher can imagine something worse than that, then they can motivate me better than I motivate myself.

God’s word indeed will not pass away, but when we talk of that, we’re not talking about a book with letters. We’re talking a voice that called a universe whose incredible scale we are only beginning to apprehend into being. I do not confuse the bible with the Word that is spoken of in the beginning of the Gospel of John. I do not worship a book. I worship the force that is behind that book, that shines through that murky glass that is human language and storytelling. It is not contempt for God that has me set the bible at a lower importance than you, it is respect for him, and disdain for the inadequacies of human words to fully capture him, even as he has helped us to capture part of his spirit in that book.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2011 4:30 PM
Comment #317858

I have read from a number of sources snippets of Obama’s SOTU speech to be read this week. Apparently there are many references to “investment in America”. Usually, when dems and libs use such language it refers to new spending programs.

I don’t believe the new congress is in any mood to entertain new spending programs. Since all spending bills must originate in the house, I will find it interesting to hear how Obama proposes to get them on board.

We have had a tremendous amount of new spending programs in the last two years and I believe the electorate is about fed up with the lackluster results.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #317859

KAP-
They did a study: it’s still cheaper to plug in than to buy gas. You’d have to purchase the energy somehow.

And my car? I get over 400 miles on a fill up of a ten gallon tank. That’s not much more than 20 bucks!

As for feasibility? Look, companies are putting hybrids on the market. It’s feasible enough to merit that. What’s not feasible is continuing to depend on Gas. It was cheap while it lasted, but it’s not going to remain so for much longer. My attitude is, let’s change while change is easier, cheaper, more gradual. Let’s not wait until we have some sort of crisis that forces our hand and puts us in a worse position economically. I got my vehicle in part because I never wanted to be in the position I was in 2008 and other times where getting the fuel to travel around would end up costing me an arm and a leg.

I don’t want to wait for supply to get scarce to reduce my demand, or that of my country for oil. That’s where you get things like stagflation from, where energy shocks swallow the benefits of higher returns on investment.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2011 4:38 PM
Comment #317860

Royal Flush-
You believe they’re fed up. If they are, what is your alternative? Are you that convinced that in these hard times, people are going to want you to spend less on them, less getting people employed?

Or, put another way, where is the Republican policy for jobs, and how is it any different than the policies that made the last ten years a lost decade for job growth?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2011 4:41 PM
Comment #317861

Stephen, Even though you have a Hybrid you still have to buy gas. IMO technology as it is I believe that cars of the future will be more economical and burn fuel cleaner. When I was a kid back in the 60’s I saw a program where a turbo engine was invented that would burn anything that was combustible and you could stand in front of the exhaust and be able to breath normaly. The technology is there but government has to be taken out of the equation. I am certain that many things have come around that would greatly enhance fuel economy but with government intervention were shelved the same with cleaner burning capabilities.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2011 5:05 PM
Comment #317862

Mr. Daugherty writes; “You believe they’re fed up. If they are, what is your alternative? Are you that convinced that in these hard times, people are going to want you to spend less on them, less getting people employed?”

Yes, I do believe the majority of the electorate is fed up. If not, how else explain the results of the November election since it was mostly about government and spending.

Yes, the electorate, while fickle at times, have finally realized that we can not spend our way to prosperity. They see states and municipalities on the brink of bankruptcy primarily caused by big spending and recognize the same symptoms in our federal government.

Stephen, I don’t believe many are convinced that government can create good lasting jobs no matter how much is spent or borrowed and regardless of their good intentions. We witnessed just how difficult it was in the last congress to pass an extension of the unemployment benefits. It took the dems trading their desires for higher taxes to accomplish that feat. What do the dems have left to trade for even more jobs and other spending that might be attractive enough to reps and cons to secure their approval?

We already see the parties and potential candidates gearing up for 2012. Can you honestly tell me that you believe even more deficit spending is going to be a successful mantra for them in the next election?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2011 5:09 PM
Comment #317863

Let me add my two cents woth in the energy discussion. Remove fossil fuels and none of us would be driving often or far. There simply is not enough wind or solar generated power to supply the needs of a large American city, much less the nation. Even ethanol requires fossil fuels to produce.

I favor continued government and private investment in new energy and it must compete with all the other pressing needs we have for our available discretionary tax money.

It will be a difficult decision for congress on where to spend as there is no national consensus to keep increasing our national debt limit to accommodate everything we might want.

Will more spending for jobs out weigh the desire to invest in new energy, education, infrastructure and such?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #317864

I asked this question above…”What do the dems have left to trade for even more jobs and other spending that might be attractive enough to reps and cons to secure their approval.”

Here’s one answer…for Obama the dem.

“Speculation is rampant that there may be a deal between the new Congress and Obama to lower the tax rate for corporations. At 35%, the United States has the second highest rate in the world, and that’s without considering state taxes. Our Canadian neighbors just lowered their top rate to 16.5%.

If this happens, it will be very amusing to watch the left go apoplectic – screaming about a sellout to those evil corporations even as it creates greater revenue for the government. Watch for this as Obama’s first great move to the center.”

From TownHall

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2011 6:27 PM
Comment #317865

KAP,
Here is a little food for thought.

Trip:480 miles 17 MPG 25 MPG 34 MPG 50 MPG
$3.00/gal $84.24 $57.60 $42.36 $28.80
$4.00/gal $112.96 $76.80 $56.48 $38.40
$5.00/gal $141.20 $96.00 $70.60 $48.00

Now do the same 480 mile trip everyday of the year;
$3.00/gal $30,922.80 $21,024.00 $15,461.40 $19,512.00
$4.00/gal $41,230.40 $28,032.00 $20,615.20 $14,016.00
$5.00/gal $51,538.00 $35,040.00 $25,769.00 $17,520.00

So you see what we think of as good gas milage has a huge impact on what we spend on gasoline evert year. And why I realize that not everybody drive a 480 miles per day. It is amazing to see just how much the average high milage individual and companies have to spend today when compared to gas at $.99 cents per gal.

What is even more impressive is when you realize that with only a little bit of political imagination Americans could actually be saving that kind of money every year and pocketing a small profit since even the vrhicles delivering our products to stores could be saving the same.

As for the electricity at home, we already have the right to produce our own electricity and sell any excess to the National Power Grid. So except for the maintance cost, how much money do you need this year since your fair share comes out to be around 400kw/hour?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 24, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #317866

Henry writes; “What is even more impressive is when you realize that with only a little bit of political imagination Americans could actually be saving that kind of money every year and pocketing a small profit since even the vrhicles delivering our products to stores could be saving the same.”

When this technology is available in (let me guess here) 3500 AD, why would anyone purchase what they are already producing themselves?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #317867
Remove fossil fuels and none of us would be driving often or far. There simply is not enough wind or solar generated power to supply the needs of a large American city, much less the nation. Even ethanol requires fossil fuels to produce.

Wrong, Solar Power alone has the potential to produce3 million Terawatt-hours per year, which is orders of magnitude larger than world energy consumption. The only thing holding us back is our lack of infrastructure, which is a result of government subsidizing the fossil fuel energy industry.

Regarding our corporate tax rate, 35% is indeed much higher than many of our peer economies. I’d support lowering it only if we eliminate the plethora of tax subsidies that enable nearly all corporations to pay a much lower rate.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 24, 2011 6:44 PM
Comment #317868

Warped Reality…try putting “potential” to work in your car today.

“Most experts believe that an appreciable contribution from solar energy is at least ten years away. However, as we continue to develop inexpensive solar electrical generating technologies, it is becoming more and more apparent that solar energy will soon provide an appreciable amount of our energy, especially in areas that receive large amounts sunlight.”
SOURCES:
http://www.iclei.org/efacts/photovol.htm

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2011 7:15 PM
Comment #317869

W.R. Solar panels are expensive.
Henry, Say with the electric Volt by Chevy, you have to charge that car every day so your home energy bill goes up so your tradeing one extreme for another. As far as produceing your own electricity maitenance cost along with state regulations make it cheaper to buy from your local electric co. Unless you are someone like the steel co. I woked at when I was younger they made their own power and were self sufficent and used coke gas to run the blast furnaces and power plant.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2011 7:15 PM
Comment #317871
Solar panels are expensive.

So are fossil fuels. In fact, solar panels are probably cheaper if one takes account of the external costs associated with fossil fuels.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 24, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #317872

Warped, it may be true about costs, but what will it cost to replace fossil fuel with solar panels? The infrastructure for fossil fuels already exists. We don’t have the public money to develop solar so it must come from the private sector. I just don’t believe congress is willing to borrow the money do you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2011 7:58 PM
Comment #317873

Royal Flush-
You ask for an explanation? The Republican Party has engaged in an non-stopped no-holds-barred campaign to reduce Democrat’s accomplishments, and to paint everything the Democrats did or are negatively.

You made one mistake: putting yourselves in charge of a major branch again. You can’t hide behind procedures anymore.

As for States and municipalities on the brink of bankruptcy? It wasn’t the spending, or rather, not the spending alone.

It’s the economy. Plain and simple. They’ve got the same bills they had before, just less money to pay them with.

And really, here’s the thing: you can convince people of what you want, but you will always be fighting reality where you’re wrong.

Make deficit spending the mantra. We’ll make jobs the mantra. You can’t cut spending and create jobs. In fact, your policies will likely lose people jobs, and we can talk about that.

And the real truth is, our economic problem isn’t that we have too much money going around, but too little, so the more successful you are at dragging money out of the economy, the worse it gets for you.

As for energy, let me put this plainly: at some point, fossil fuels remove themselves. Whether we heed the problem of carbon emissions or not in a timely manner, we face the eventual shortage of our energy resource.

And really, we have the technology to do better NOW. We’ve just not built the society to depend on it.

As for this:

Will more spending for jobs out weigh the desire to invest in new energy, education, infrastructure and such?

What would I do without your mirthful jibes?

You know, folks have to be paid to do those jobs, right? and if we get off of soon to be expensive sources of energy, and go on to alternatives of a more reliable supply, we’ll avoid losing the jobs that depend on the economy, that depends on a sustainable energy source.

I don’t know whether you were looking in 2006, but part of what slowed down the economy is that your nice, friendly, self-policing energy traders put such a premium on fossil fuels that people stopped engaging in different economic activities. Things got more expensive.

You see these sectors as separate, but the truth is, without education you don’t make scientific advances. Without those advances, new efficiencies and automation doesn’t come to bear. Meanwhile, infrastructure and energy need to be maintained for other economic activity to go on.

The truth is, we need to stimulate the economy. You will not save your way out of a crisis whose basic problem is that everybody’s saving and getting negative returns on investment. You cannot cure starvation with a crash diet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2011 8:37 PM
Comment #317874

KAP and Royal Flush,
Thank you for proving to C&J and Z who is pessimists. For why we offer you proof that not only is solar and wind can replace oil as Americas’ primary source of energy, but can do it in such a manner as to releave the American Consumer, Small Business Owner, and Taxpayer of their monthly expenses related to the consumption of fuel. All Stephen and I hear are the same excuses that have been used for years.

So I guess the debate between President Obama and Speaker Boehner is shaping up to be actually very simple. Do you support Americans being free of their monthly energy expenses or do you think moving forward in the 21st Century we should support the Global Oil Industry and Special Interest Groups charging us more and more for the energy we consume?

For why I now the Youth of Today understands why it is not smart to give their 16 year old the keys to an electric car which will pay them to drive up and down the road. However, I do believe they will be surprised to learn they have the power to regulate such activities.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 24, 2011 9:44 PM
Comment #317875

Henry, When they can harness wind power without all those windmills dotting the landscape and solar power without all those big reflectors hanging on a roof. Like I keep saying if you can come up with a cheap reliable way to power this country instead of flapping your key board then do it. We will be forever grateful.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2011 10:01 PM
Comment #317876

Oil is traded on the world market, so no matter where it is found it solves no American problem, it merely pads profit for international oil conglomerates. It is not possible for America to be able to add more than three percent to the poil flow and it is more than likely that China would buy that up.

God is not, so all those arguments are moot.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #317879

Henry said:

“So I guess the debate between President Obama and Speaker Boehner is shaping up to be actually very simple. Do you support Americans being free of their monthly energy expenses”

“Obama: Spike energy costs to make people go ‘green’
2007 interview: Proposes government create ‘price signals’ to control behavior

————————————————————————————————————————
Posted: November 01, 2008
7:05 pm Eastern


By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


JOHNSTON, Iowa – In a recently publicized video from the Democratic primaries, Sen. Barack Obama said the government should drive energy bills up through “price signals” in order to force Americans into more environmentally friendly choices.

In the Nov. 9, 2007, interview on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press,” Obama said Americans like driving SUVs and leaving the lights on, but since “it is undisputable that the climate is getting warmer,” consumers would have to change their habits.

When asked what would make consumers change, Obama said government-created “price signals” would make people more mindful of energy costs and compel them to start changing light bulbs and turning off light switches.

Watch the video documentary, “Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change”

Associated Press reporter Mike Glover asked, “How do you convince people to change their lifestyle, to live differently?”

Obama’s answer, viewable in the video below, was, “I think it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior. You know, if electricity goes up, people start becoming more mindful of their electricity bill.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79758

“Obama: I’ll Cause Energy Prices to Skyrocket
By Michael van der Galien - Last updated: Sunday, November 2, 2008 - Save & Share - Comments (8)
In the same interview in which Sen. Barack Obama said that he would cause coal-burning power plants to go bankrupt, he also said that, as president, he would purposefully cause energy prices to “skyrocket.”

The two statements combined could make Obama’s position rather problematic in the last days of the campaign. For months, Obama campaigned as a reasonably moderate Democrat, preferring pragmatism over idealism. His voting record and increasingly more statements, past votes and actions and associations, however, indicate that the real Obama is the one who became the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.

“The problem is not technical and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington,” Obama told the San Fransisco Chronicle about energy. “The problem is, can you get people to say, ‘this is really important,’ and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. And climate change is a great example,” he said.

“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know — under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/11/02/obama-ill-cause-energy-prices-to-skyrocket/

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-vows-electricity-rates-would-necessarily-skyrocket-under-his-plan/

Again, Henry said, “Do you support Americans being free of their monthly energy expenses”

Henry, how are those energy prices going to go down? You and the socialist president are not on the same page.

Posted by: Z at January 24, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #317881

Z,
Considering in 2007 gas was at $4.00 plus a gallon the Senator Obama taliing about the spiking prices will make people go green would have been proper.

KAP,
With home generation of electricity being so simple as figuring out how to combine electric/solar fans with wind mills I figure most Americans can figure it out on their own.

As for electric cars powered by man made wind which can pay one to drive up and down Main Street, like I tell the Youth of Today. I cannot think of a better unbreakable argument to hold against My Elders and Peers of the 50’s, 60’s, amd 70’s than to show their children and grandchildren that it can be done. So why would I give up such an argument when even by their own words the Youth of Today will not allow their 16 year old to own an electric car which will pay them to drive up and down the road? Seems that somethings are still “Just Because.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 24, 2011 10:39 PM
Comment #317882

Henry, here is the future of your green jobs and solar panels:

Solar panel production company closes its doors.By Max Bowen/Staff Writer
Billerica Minuteman
Posted Aug 11, 2009 @ 09:23 PM

Billerica, Mass. — Despite some 11th-hour assistance from the state, SCHOTT Solar has made the decision to close the doors of its Billerica production plant.

Bryan Lynch, spokesperson for SCHOTT North America, said the plant ceased operations on July 31. In an e-mail, he said the company is continuing its efforts to relocate the 180 full-time and 45 part-time displaced workers who were employed at the Suburban Park Drive plant.

Lynch could not comment on how many of the plant’s employees had been relocated.

“More than a couple but much less than the 180 that were let go,” Lynch said. “We’ve collected names and are looking internally for opportunities.”

State agencies and representatives from Sen. John Kerry’s and Gov. Deval Patrick’s offices tried to step in to see what can be done to save the plant.

“There was nothing presented to us that provided a feasible alternative to keep the facility open,” Lynch said.

Following the closure the property will transition back to its landlord, the Gutierrez Company. According to the town assessor’s office, the property and land are worth a combined value of $8.3 million and generates between $200,000 and $250,000 in property taxes.

SCHOTT Solar owns 16 manufacturing plants nationwide, of which Billerica represents around 5 percent. Lynch said the last time one of SCHOTT’s plants closed was in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., two years ago. The company employs 2,000 workers in the United States.

Ken Messina, the state’s Rapid Response manager for the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, said extra effort is being made to relocate the displaced workers. Rapid Response has a fund set aside for the One Stop Career Center, which the state agency frequently partners with to find new jobs for workers in the event of a closure. Attempts will be made to secure funding to hire additional personnel to work with the former SCHOTT employees.

“We work together, try and place people before they lose their jobs,” Messina said.

Rapid Response teams also offer educational services to teach unemployed workers how to interview for new jobs, and how to apply for health insurance. The agency worked with the employees of Jabil Circuits, another company located in Billerica which closed its doors earlier this summer. The plant employed around 300 workers.

In early June, the solar panel production company filed a Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification WARN with the state and the town, notifying its workers of its intent to close the plant on Monday, Aug. 3.

The longevity of the Billerica plant came into question in 2006 when the company notified workers that it would close because of inadequate supplies of silicon. But in May 2007 the company, which also has plants in Southbridge, Mass. Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New York and Indiana, notified its 220 employees that it was able to secure enough supplies of silicon and that their jobs were safe.

Mark Finocchario, president and CEO of SCHOTT Solar Inc., said shortly after the company’s announcement of the plant’s closing in June that SCHOTT’s supply was outpacing the demand for a product that was not selling. Finocchario said in June that he didn’t know how much will be saved by closing the plant.

doors”>http://www.wickedlocal.com/billerica/news/x1591365771/Solar-panel-production-company-closes-its-doors

California Solar Manufacturer Closes Plant
Thu, Nov

California-based solar panel manufacturer Solyndra has closed one of its two factories and cut their production target for the next three years in half. A total of 40 employees were let go, in addition to the company not renewing the contracts of 135 temporary workers.

Issued from a company statement on Wednesday morning:

“There is a clear need for more aggressive pricing. This plan allows us to stay very competitive on a fully installed cost basis with all in pricing next year around $3.50 a watt which we believe will be highly competitive or even lower than (silicon module-based system) pricing. We expect this plan will allow us to double shipments next year and take us to cash-flow positive by the end of 2011.”

plant/”>http://www.layoffwatch.com/2010/11/california-solar-manufacturer-closes-plant/

Solar-Panel Maker to Close a Factory and Delay ExpansionBy TODD WOODY

Published: November 3, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar-panel maker that won half a billion dollars in federal aid to build a state-of-the-art robotic factory, plans to announce on Wednesday that it will shut down an older plant and lay off workers.

BP Solar is Laying off 620, Outsourcing Panel Manufacturing
The company is closing a panel assembly factory in the United States and one in Spain. BP also plans to outsource panel production to others. This cost-cutting move is becoming trendy.
. Outsourcing is becoming vogue in the solar equipment business.

BP Solar is shutting down some of its production lines in the United States and Spain, and it is looking for manufacturers to produce panels using BP’s components and bearing BP’s brand.

The company announced on Tuesday plans to close its solar panel assembly center in Maryland and said it would lay off 140 people out of a 600-person workforce. It plans to continue to manufacture other crystalline silicon solar equipment components at the Maryland complex.

BP is also closing its solar cell and panel-manufacturing complex in Madrid, where it will let go 480 out of 575 employees. Marketing and sale staff will continue to work in the Madrid office.

BP decided to close these plants down in order to cut operational costs during the economic downturn, which as led to softened demand for solar energy equipment, the company said. Yet it expects to bring more BP solar panels to market than before. In fact, the company said it expects to sell up to 320 megawatts of panels in 2009, doubling what it did in 2008.

How? Contracting with manufacturers to make BP-branded solar panels. Some of the materials and parts that go into making the panels will come from BP.

“We are negotiating now with potential global suppliers who can provide us with high volume and high quality module assembly from regional manufacturing centers,” said Tom Mueller, a BP Solar spokesman.

Mueller declined to name these contract manufacturers, saying negotiations with the companies are still taking place. Some of these partners could likely be Asian companies that can keep manufacturing costs low. BP canceled a $97 million plan to expand its ingot production center in Maryland last year mainly because of the growing competition from Asian companies (see BP Solar Nixes Factory Expansion).

Although BP is closing the panel assembly plant in Maryland, it plans to continue to make silicon ingots, wafers and solar cells on the same site. It has a joint venture with Tata in India and Sun Oasis in China to make and market its panels.

“Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama’s economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.

But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:

“Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.”

boondoggle/”>http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/13/spains-green-jobs-boondoggle/


Posted by: Z at January 24, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #317884

I have an idea for a new reality show. The ratings would be off the charts. It would feature detailed investigative reports on United States representatives and senators. It would highlight what their worth (bank accounts, property, etc.) was when they entered office and what it was when they left office. The show would also reveal what legislation they supported and compare that with contributions they received.

Why do you think they end up with so much money at the end of their time in office? Might it be because they sold out the American citizens’ best interests? Might that be a big reason we are in the shape we are in?

Americans would love to see such a show.

Posted by: Michael at January 24, 2011 11:12 PM
Comment #317885

Z,
Between the same time frame how many jobs were lost due to cheaper labor overseas? Are we to believe Americans can no longer depend on corporations to provide them with an income? Thus, by default shouldn’t we stop trying to support them?

Yes, today Corporations have a real serious PR problem. For on one hand they have proven they cannot be trusted to make their stockholders profit and on the other hand they are creating fewer and fewer customers. All because they do not grasp the Ideology trickledown economics. Given proof by their continued chase of cheaper and cheaper labor and management.

So why it is easy to point out how some Green jobs have been loss due to those operating agenda I would say that the loss of other regular jobs is due to that we do not need those jobs in order to become energy independent.

Besides, Americans can use solar energy to create electricity simple by magnifing sun rays in order to make a system which burns hotter than the sun in order to create steam to drive generators. Yet, waiting only on the Corporate World to sell us the energy we can generate on our own is either IMHO “Plum Crazy” or just “Plum Lazy” which goes against IMHO just being American.

For just as our Forefathers and Ancestors built a Super Power out of nothng, this generation has the opportunity to build an Energy Independent American out of the scraps they throw away or concede that they are to ignorant to look out for their own Inherent Vest Interest and continue to rely on the Corporation for handouts.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 12:04 AM
Comment #317886

z-
Calzada’s work has been criticized for a lack of scientific rigor, and for using a methodologies not generally used to estimate such job impacts, and for basically failing to actually identify the lost jobs.

Or to put it another way:

But the study doesn’t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending. Specifically, each green job required on average 571,000 euros, compared with 259,000 euros in “average capital per worker” in the rest of the economy.

So how does that translate into outright job destruction? It’s simply a question of opportunity cost, the paper says: “The money spent by the government cannot, once committed to “green jobs”, be consumed or invested by private parties and therefore the jobs that would depend on such consumption and investment will disappear or not be created.”

The author goes on to say that the money comes out of existing revenues that weren’t crowding the private market out to begin with, not with a tax policy that was actually cutting rates for corporations.

You have to earn these sorts of claims, and the man doesn’t do the research to earn them. his conclusion is based on an averaging of the capital per worker in Europe. As far as I can tell, he didn’t even try to determine what the average rate was for the sort of work being done, which often involves specialized manufacture, maintenance and research on advanced, cutting edge technology.

I mean, the sort of person you would hire to improve the design on a solar panel might be a specialized electrician, or a physicist or chemist who dealt with things like band-gap engineering. The manufacture of these sorts of devices shares a lot of common ground with the manufacture of computer chips.

In other words, it’s kind of foolish to compare the average cost of employing a person in this sort of field with the general population, and trying to derive some value on effeciency that way, because you’re not even trying to compare apples to apples. These are most likely better paying, higher educated jobs by their nature. That will push the average up there.

And even so, the guy never really proves that jobs were lost in a way where you could really say, if it hadn’t been for that green job, two people might have been employed.

But you know what? It’s just what folks like you want to hear. They put out a lot of those messages, don’t you know, the flattering messages that tell you that Global warming is a hoax, that Liberals are trying to destroy the economy and the nation.

Of course, it has little bearing on reality, but as somebody who watches, reads and write fantasy knows, bearing on reality is not necessary to make something compelling to people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 25, 2011 12:06 AM
Comment #317887

Royal Flush,
I’ll agree to zero taxes for corporations if they are no longer able to have a voice in our government; however, I doubt if that is going to happen in our lifetime. Besides, I want to know how the Republicans and Tea Party are going to pay down the debt and return America back to a smaller governmrent (size 1999) without the taxes pais for by corporations and still have them recieve the present day subsidies.

On the lighter side, just admit that this Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature is ABSOLUTLY RIGHT REGARDLESS and you can have all the energy you want tomorrow. However, good luck selling that idea to your wife and kids let alone your parents and Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 12:39 AM
Comment #317889

Obama: Jan. 2010 SOTU Address:

“You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China’s not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany’s not waiting. India’s not waiting. These nations aren’t standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.”

This will be recycled for the 2011 SOTU speech. Btw, no one is telling us to “wait.” The U.S. is the most competitive country on the planet, bar none. To say otherwise is to ‘re-package’ reality. The only thing holding back our competitiveness is trade regulations, licensing and labeling agreements, special interest quotas, a 35 percent corporate tax (compared to the 20 percent avg. of the rest of the worrld) and other boundaries.

Why do you think that solar panel company in Massachusetts (which received millions in govt. ‘green technology’ subsidies) recently left to manufacture their panels in China last month? I’m pretty sure it had nothing to do with competitiveness and a whole lot to do about a level playing field (too many tax burdens, etc.)

Cont: from 2010 SOTU Address:

“But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

Too bad Obama did not follow through on his promises (moratorium on off-shore oil drilling for seven years). The WH even used academic scientists and Army Corp of Engineers’ own findings to ‘manipulate’ an important BP Oil Spill Report, making it sound like the Engineers and other scientists backed a moratorium based on safety problems. This was a real scandal that did not get much press (Politico and a few other media outlets nailed Obama, Browner, and the WH on this scheme).

And what ever happened to these so-called nuclear plants?

Cont: from 2010 SOTU Address:

“So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

Sounded like A Lot of blame-shifting and finger-poining. Why run for office if it’s too daunting for you? We all knew how bad it was; we lived it! And 1 in 10 of us are still without employment.

Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.

I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (emphasis mine; a favorite) So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.”

Cont: from 2010 SOTU Address:

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010 …”

Ya Think?! I feel like I’m in that movie Groundhog Day. Only, it’s Jan. 2011, not Jan. 2010.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 25, 2011 3:52 AM
Comment #317890

Kevin L. Lagola,
Given the State of the Union at the begining of 2010 and now 2011 I wonder how many Americans realize that one of the things done in the 1970’s was to make sure Americas’ Democratic and Republican Leadership did nothing to solve the issues at the time?

And why there were several good reasons for such actions at the time (not letting someone like me take over the world) for example). I do believe all Americans need to listen not just hear what President Obama and the two Republican has to say about the State of the Union. For as you pointed out America still faces high unemployeement, high national debt, high budget deficit, high energy costs, and a high unwillingness to work yogether in order to solve these problems. However, unlike Americas’ Democratic and Republican Leadership, Our Citizenry can work together in order to solve the Issues of the 20th Century.

For just as KAP, Royal Flush, and Z oppose the idea of creating Green Jobs in order to lower high unemployeement, reduce the national debt, and eliminate the high cost of energy because they grew up knowing nothing more than Corporate Handouts. People like Stephen need to educate them on how behind doors for the last 40 years America has been working to bring about the innovations and technology which will allow our children and grandchildren decide for themselves how far they are willing to go in order to continue their Parents’ Dream of building a “Better World” given our State of the Union and every Americans’ desire to build a “More Prefect Union.”

For why it can’t be All Labor or All Management which solves our problems, but how the Corporation as a Whole can overcome the differences in order to get every American on the same page. So listen well as Americas’ Democratic and Republican Leadership present what they see as the outer limits of our problems and how to point America in the right direction than decide for youself how you can make a difference in correcting them by bringing America back to center.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 7:51 AM
Comment #317891

Henry, I am not opposed to green jobs. The technology was there for green jobs when I was a kid and that was back in the 50’s and 60’s. Many things were invented but shelved by the government, Why? Because of the oil barons were in the pockets of both Democrats and Republicans. Also Henry as far as Stephen goes about teaching anyone he is just barely out of puberty and needs to learn a little more his self.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2011 9:23 AM
Comment #317892

KAP-
Nice that you take a cheap shot at my youth. Thing is, though, I can tell you all kinds of things about the technology, and why the so-called “good for the economy” measures, like letting jobs and technology get outsourced are part of what’s making it hard to recover from this problem.

One of the key problems is that we let market economics persuade us to shut down our rare earth element mines, making China the near monopoly on that, a fact they’re using to their advantage now to try and force green companies to use their facilities. Your people dragged their feet on helping the green companies recover from the 2008 economic disaster, so thanks to that, we don’t have a leg up on the Chinese, they have it on us.

Your side let the markets decide, when the markets would have been just fine reacting to what government and industries decided were the high priorities.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 25, 2011 10:00 AM
Comment #317893

Stephen, The problem is we need a government that has set of balls which I haven’t seen in a very long time, that will stand up for this country instead of cowtoeing to every whim of a third world government or dictator. As far as outsourceing, that we brought on ourselves by greed within the labor force and corporate greed. Stephen, people haven’t learned from the mistakes of the past they just keep making the same mistakes over and over and government is just as guilty of that. I am sure witout government intervention most green technological companies can create jobs and create more efficent and cheaper energy sources. One thing that has puzzled me for awhile, is why your Green Guru Al Gore with all his millions hasn’t started a green technological research co. instead of running around the country with his sky is falling BS.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2011 10:34 AM
Comment #317894

KAP,
“Many things were invented but shelved by the government, Why?”

Fair enough question; however, I do believe others and you are not going to like the answer. For just as you make fun of Stephens Youth today, back in 1969 when America first landed on the moon we had a lot of starry eyed little spoiled wet nosed brats who didn’t know which hole they were speaking from(your parents words not mine and I am being nice). Because why most (and no means the majority)realized the awesome responsibility and massive changes the technology of the time would have on the world at large, the fact most of the worlds’ population lacked even the basic education to grasp Space Travel. It was decided (IMHO forced upon My Community Elders and Peers) that the Human Race would be better off if the World Leaders had more time to enlighten its citizenry and thus avoid world wide panic since it was known with the UFO reports that people from all walks of life feared the idea.

And though this is not the first time such things have happened in the History of Man, you are on your own in looking it up. For just as I can smile at My Elders and Peers of the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s as well as the Youth today at their response to allowing a 16 year old have the keys to an electric car which will pay them to drive up and down the road. Recognizing that most of the Youth in the World today have never been exposed to such technology. It would be unfair and cause world wide damage given the behavoir of some, but no means the majority of the Youth which have such resources.

So given the understanding of limitations Humans must place upon themselve and their children “Just Because” can those over the age of 30 put aside their Fears, Prejudice, and Pessimistic View long enough to listen to the Leaders of the Youth today (those under the age of 30) explain how such a thing as Bio-Mass can reduced the carbon in the air, provide a long term reliable source of packaging material, reduce the impact waste has on our landfills, provide warm moist air to our atmosphere, return nutrients to our soil, and even provide a long sustainable source which will feed the Fire of their Parents Establishment.

Because why it is Humanly possible given how little we know today, given the Universal Knowledge it will release upon Man. The Youth of Today is going to need a Partner in teaching their children and grandchildren that while Space Travel is possible politically speaking “The Sky is the Limit.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 12:03 PM
Comment #317895

KAP-
The Obama Administration has the balls. The Republicans just keep trying to cut them off to please the business interests who are more interested in the status quo that benefits them than the change that would benefit us all.

The Republicans, and too many Democrats are beholden to a view that cedes decision making about the economy to the market. You say without intervention they would have prospered? Well, with what money? Part of what z is talking about, in terms of green companies going out of business and jobs heading overseas is a matter of our investments here coming to an end.

As for what Al Gore has started? Well, he’s not sitting on his laurels But of course, when he does put his money where his mouths is, Republicans pillory him for it.

It’s easy to tear people down, to sow distrust, to get people to turn against others. But real leadership is difficult. You listen to far too many people who merely want to paralyze the folks who will change the world away from what benefits them.

Al Gore isn’t the hypocrite conservatives paint him to be, nor the alarmist. It’s time you stop basing your notion of climate change on your political rivalry, and actually look at the strong science that supports it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 25, 2011 12:28 PM
Comment #317896

Henry, From what I gather of what you wrote it all boils down to education and that is where places like Japan, China and a few others are putting us to shame. We worry more about teacher unions then the teachers qualifications. The old saying Garbage in Garbage out applies to some of our school districts and Universities. A person could be book smart but totally ignorant as far as practical experience goes. So what your saying is the youth of the 50’s and 60’s were to stupid to grasp the technology advances back then?

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2011 12:37 PM
Comment #317897

Kevin L. Lagola-
The Republicans spent the last decade resolving all those problems. They cut taxes, cut regulations, let Wall Street keep huge portions of its business to itself.

Did that create jobs? No, the last decade, even without the recession, was crap for jobs. But the Republicans want to try again, and again, and again until they are vindicated.

Groundhog Day, indeed.

More insistence that the average person pay for the mistakes of the elite, that we let Wall Street continue policing itself after one of the worst economic disasters in modern American history. More insistence that if we just cut regulations and taxes businesses won’t go, or will come back. More insistence that if we just let China have everything they want in trade deals, that if we shoot down laws that meant to repeal tax breaks for outsourcing, that America will prosper again.

I don’t think the continuation of the hideous status quo at the same time Republicans do their best to make sure Democrats change little is a coincidence.

I think that Republicans had their chance to prove themselves right, and proved themselves wrong instead. They don’t want to admit it, so they raised the political fervor, raised the anger and fear, and have since pushed a campaign to keep their policies going despite the problems they’re causing.

But everything reeks of the same panicked desperation, the same failure to compromise that is born of the fear that without dominance, they will be forgotten and forsaken by the voters.

You know what, though? Republicans will face that reckoning, sooner or later, and they will either compromise, or be broken by their failure to do so.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 25, 2011 1:06 PM
Comment #317898

KAP,
I’m not saying the youth of the 50’s and 60’s were to stupid to grasp the technology advances back then; however, considering 10 year olds had to set the timer on the vcrs when they were introduced says a lot.

As far as Japan, China and a few others putting us to shame in education, I guess it depends on what you want to pass off as knowledge. For why their students do get better grades than ours, when placed in the Real World under Live Conditions can they preform as good as Americans? Because why I have no doubt when it comes to conforming to Corporate Rule societies like Japan and China have an advantage, I do not see them taking charge of the innovations and technology which will drive the world forward.

No, it has allows been easy to get the masses to folow the leader and why sometines it has an advantage in bussiness as in life it also becomes a liability. For just as I am sure you are good at doing your daily job. Can you handle it when the Plans according to the Learn do not work? Because take the factory worker who has done the same job day in and day out for years, would you say he is highly educated or has just learned a skill?

However, allow management to change even the simplest thing and some would say you have to retrain the factory worker. Nonetheless, what do you call the factory worker who can take just one look at the simplest change and tell managemnt it will not work by proving it?

Yes, getting good grades in school is important if for no other reason than to prove to your teaher that you know and undestand what they are talking about and are trying to explain to the rest of the class. Nonetheless, with the Teacher having grown up in a 2D World and the Child living in a 3D World where do both stand in the argument of knowledge held by a 6D and 12D World respectfully?

So like those in the 50’s and 60’s who needed help setting the timer on the vcr, what new products are we going to see over the next forty years which will even have Today’s Youth looking stupid?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 1:14 PM
Comment #317899

Mr. Daugherty writes; “As for States and municipalities on the brink of bankruptcy? It wasn’t the spending, or rather, not the spending alone. It’s the economy. Plain and simple. They’ve got the same bills they had before, just less money to pay them with.”

These “same” bills you write of simply is not true. States were spending ever more money believing that they could pay them with ever increasing revenue. They weren’t merely spending what they were taking in, but spending that exceeded their current revenue. So, when the economy tanked they were left with bills for spending into the next decade or two.

Many states weren’t paying their bills at all but merely using accounting tricks to postpone when they came due.

Henry writes; “So I guess the debate between President Obama and Speaker Boehner is shaping up to be actually very simple. Do you support Americans being free of their monthly energy expenses or do you think moving forward in the 21st Century we should support the Global Oil Industry and Special Interest Groups charging us more and more for the energy we consume.”

Henry, could you give us details on how this free energy works? If Obama reads, in his SOTU tonight, that Americans can be free of their monthly energy expenses, he will be committed to an institution and treated for mental derangement.


Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 1:30 PM
Comment #317900

Obama has no balls; he is what you might call, a eunuch. He is an absolute liar. If he opens his mouth, he is lying. He is a politician and politicians worry about re-election. Everything he now (miraculously) stands for, he stood against for the past 2 years. He will say and do anything to further his socialist agenda. If the democrats had not lost in November, what would he be talking about tonight? He has been anti-business for 2 years, but now, all of a sudden, he is pro-business. Joe Wilson had it right a year ago. Last year, Obama, mentioned jobs 29 times, without creating any; how many times will he talk about them tonight? As far as these politicians sitting together; it is a joke.

“It’s easy to tear people down, to sow distrust, to get people to turn against others.”

Tell me Stephen, what do you have to say about Bush, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Conservatives, or anyone else who opposes soicialism?


By the way Stephen; I think you missed the point on the solar panels. These companiess are going broke (even with gov. money) and closing the doors.

KAP, you are correct about Mr. Daugherty’s youth. I always heard, it takes 60 years to get 60 years experience.

Posted by: Z at January 25, 2011 1:32 PM
Comment #317901

RF, If the democrats still controlled the purse strings, we wouldn’t be hearing about state and municiple finance problems. But since the republicans control the money, we are now inundated with how much help they need or the country will go to hell in a handbasket.

Posted by: Z at January 25, 2011 1:39 PM
Comment #317902

Royal Flush,
To easy; however, why President Obama will not use the words “Americans and our Government can be free of their monthly bills.” In usig the words “Energy Independence” through producing Green Jobs what does he mean? For you see it is easy to believe he wants you to change Masters from a foreign leaders to a domestic leader if you fail to understand the impact putting solar panels and wind mill generators on your property. Nonetheless, those with Basic Common Knowledge will understand that the more electricity you produce the less you have to pay the electric company. And produce even more than you consume in a month and the electric company will even write you a check. Simple and evem better if you learn how to maintain the equippment yourself.

So again why do you support paying for the energy you need when Americas’ Forefathers and Ancestors had no such expenses?

Z,
“I always heard, it takes 60 years to get 60 years experience”

Is that why we still have 60 year old men running around like they haven’t got a brain in their head?

Just because you have age on your side doesn’t mean you are smart. In facy just ask any grandma as see laughs when her 10 year old grandson puts you in your place.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 2:00 PM
Comment #317903

Henry, Some of those 60 year olds that have no brains are in congress part of both parties. Henry do you have a wind mill generator in your back yard? I’m pretty sure if I put one up in my back yard there would be a neighborhood uprising to have it torn down. First because I couldn’t get the permit to build one and second because it would be unsightly in a neighborhood setting and thirdly because I’m not qualified to operate a power plant. Fourthly because of the maintenance involved.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #317904

KAP, not long ago I read an article about a community in California that passed an ordinance forbidding anyone from having a clothesline on their property. Someone wishing to save some energy by using the sun to dry their laundry instead of their clothes dryer would be fined in that community.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 4:00 PM
Comment #317905

Henry, the language you use in your comments makes me wonder if you are just recently reincarnated from centuries ago.

Conservatives are not against new energy ideas or development. What we don’t support are huge new spending programs by government to make it happen faster than what the private market will fund.

The electorate simply does not want to add more to our national budget as was clearly demonstrated in the November election.

I expect tonight’s SOTU to be full of calls for belt-tightening while calling for more spending. Of course, it won’t be called spending…but rather, investment. I hope Americans understand that a mere $1 billion is $1000 million.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 4:31 PM
Comment #317906

KAP,
Not owning private property (self-selected) I don’t owm a windmill generatotr; however, that is not to say I won’t want to own one. As for you and others on the subject. Society, not the Government has put up strong barriers to keep most citizens out of the business of creating their own electricity. And why there are several special interest groups that to this fay protest such activities, it has long been the government position to allow personal generation of electricity on ones’ private property.

In fact, the federal law requiring electric companies to purchase the excess electricity from home owners is fairly new. For it seems when the “Good Ole Boys” where running the :pcal and State goverments that special interest had paid some of them a lot of money to keep the electric companies monoploy on the industry.

So why you have the same complaints as others (including myself) who do not like seeing the tall poles dotting their neighborhood or the idea that most men do not have a clue on how electricity is produced by such a machine. We still can have our cake and eat it too.

For though not permitted myself due to my political standing in society (rotten 10 year old child) to promote such an idea in front of our elected officials, it seems to me that a 21st Century Corporation interested in serving the public good could;

1) Lease or purchase land for the intent of installing and maintaining Personal Home Electric Generator Systems.

2) Sell said units to local citizens interested in making such an investment for their home, office, and other personal meeds.

3) Contract where possible the sell of electricity to Local, State, and Federal Governments in exchange for pesronal payment of taxes.

And why I am sure someone could find other reasons why such a corporation would be a benefit to the community, the only ones I see who could be harmed is my direct competitors, the electric companies.

For why we would have to go back several years here in America to find when not every American had electricity running on their land (40’s and 50’s). Today, the biggest objection to the idea of every American generatoring 20 mega watts of electricity per year is from Grandmas, Moms, and Grlfriends. And that is after they know that 20 mw of electricity sold at a nickel a kilowatt will provide an income of about a million dollars.

So until we can do something to change their minds I guess the Corporations will not have a cheap source of electricity and Man will continue to pay the bill.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #317907

Royal Flush,
Good try; however, considering they have yet to bring forth one good idea on how every American can actually prosper in these economic times, pay down the debt, and secure Americas’ future we both know they are blowing smoke.

As for days gone by, as a so-called conservative and Tea party supporter I would expect you would prefer the use of my words for they do go back to a day when American Conservatism ws about protecting the rights of the Individual over the Rights of Big Business. The problem I see with America today is that like the Republicans they would rather do nothing than to see the Individual American protect their Stabdard of living.

So again let me ask you, do you support paying monnthly bills for energy you can make on your on and sell the extra for a profit? For than it becomes a question of which Master will you serve?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 4:51 PM
Comment #317908

Henry, my electric bill for my home averages about $85 per month. What can I build for myself for that amount of money?

If you are so determined to make money for yourself on solar and wind energy, why not just buy stock in an existing company and skip all the callouses on your hands and the sweat?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #317909

Henry, From your latest comments you just answered my question, you don’t have the foggyest what your talking about.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2011 5:28 PM
Comment #317910

Royal Flush,
Why buying stock in electric companies to offset your monthly electric bills is an option, compare the amount of money you are required to invest in order to get such a return to the cost of purchasing your own and the income you can recieve for the electricity you do not use.

Why the exact break even number doesn’t come to mind right now. Given the argument of using OPM it comes down to the idea if the Wealthy wants to lease a limo or purchase one that he knows he can rent out when not needing it.

KAP,
Look up the history of electricity in America. You might be surprised to learn that some places out west of the mississippi river still have to go without power due to the high cost and low return. No, renewable energy may seem new to most Americans since the first wind mill farm in America only opened up in 1980. However, they fail to realize that farmers have been using windmills for years to do odd and end jobs for years to include generate electricity.

Posted by: Hwnry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 6:17 PM
Comment #317911

Henry, I will ask once again…”Henry, my electric bill for my home averages about $85 per month. What can I build for myself for that amount of money?”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 6:34 PM
Comment #317912

Henry, Mine averages about $50.00 per month. So what can me and R.F do to top the averages we pay without spending thousands.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2011 6:53 PM
Comment #317913

Henry, If a person live out in the middle of no where, I can see investing in some sort of power station but in the middle of a city is NOT PRACTICLE.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2011 6:56 PM
Comment #317914

I believe WB is all washed up. Not much interest.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 7:19 PM
Comment #317915

Henry, I might also ask the same question. I live in Florida and my monthly electric bill is less than $50.00 a month. Perhaps you could tell me what green power I could invest in that would save me more money.

RF said to Henry, “If you are so determined to make money for yourself on solar and wind energy, why not just buy stock in an existing company and skip all the callouses on your hands and the sweat?”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 05:18 PM

Perhaps Henry could invest in Al Gore’s ponzi scheme of carbon credits. Oh wait, that went belly up.

“Henry, From your latest comments you just answered my question, you don’t have the foggyest what your talking about.
Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2011 05:28 PM”

Agree with you 100 %. I have always thought Henry suffers from too much wacky weed in the 60’s.

Posted by: Z at January 25, 2011 7:27 PM
Comment #317916

Since the last election the libs seem to have lost interest as it is becoming more difficult every day to defend their positions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 7:29 PM
Comment #317917

RF, DiscussAmerica is no better.

Posted by: Z at January 25, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #317918

Poor libs; conservativism is growing, liberalism is failing, they are loosing control in the government, obama has forsaken them, and the only thing they accomplished in two years is being repealed and de-funded.

Posted by: Z at January 25, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #317919

Hey…don’t knock Henry…he was self schooled and recess lasted 8 hours every day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 7:35 PM
Comment #317920

Hey…don’t knock Henry…he was self schooled and recess lasted 8 hours every day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 7:39 PM
Comment #317921

Mr. Daugherty writes:

“As for States and municipalities on the brink of bankruptcy? It wasn’t the spending, or rather, not the spending alone. It’s the economy. Plain and simple. They’ve got the same bills they had before, just less money to pay them with.”

I agree Royal Flush, Stephen foolishly follows the typical liberal meme which always calls for more revenue. It’s not a ‘spending problem,’ he/they say. Of course it is a spending problem! One cannot claim that because the economy is poor and thus tax revenues are down that it’s not a spending problem. Budgets MUST be based on real-life risk outlook, not on best-case scenarios like what happened with mortgage loan originators and their rosy picture of never-ending home price increases.

Our government has a monopoly on most major entitlement type programs (and not necessarily the big three either). There is little incentive for managers and politically-connected appointees to drive out waste, fraud and redundancy. It’s abominable! Obama actually realizes this and wants to work on it. The redundancy problem alone is mindboggling.

However, he must place real problem solvers in charge to root out such crony capitalism. I have little faith in Obama’s understanding of running things, except for electioneering.

I suggest hiring those who are experts in lean manufacturing (Toyota Production System and Six-Sigma) and other business process SMEs. Their SOLE mission in life is to continuously improve systems, processes and people management. They know how to systematically see all the ‘ills’ of bad processes.

In other words, Obama must look for the private sector to help shape what’s wrong with Washington, D.C.

This strategy is so simplistic, yet powerful. Don’t believe me? Simply look at your current state’s culture of corruption, where pols, developers and other politically-connected people ruin state, local and municipal government for their own benefit. Sadly, it’s a cottage industry in America (scandal, fraud, kick-backs, cover-ups, collusion, conspiracy, intimidation and plain old incompetence).

My home state is decidedly Democratic. It has been for over 20 years. And the corruption is widespread. Indeed, many a Republican was dirty too. However, when things don’t change, they stay the same. Many Dems in my state are finally seeing how bad things have turned out. We are a small state and everyone knows everyone else. Our local newspaper uncovers scandal after scandal.

It’s a difficult culture to break. People are outraged. Yet, many benefit from the cyclical public-sector, union-elected-democratic-official cycle syndrome which vitiates an otherwise credible system.


Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 25, 2011 7:41 PM
Comment #317922

You’re right Kevin. In many states and municipalities corruption is the currency of commerce.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #317923

Perhaps someone could answer a question. The socialist liberals hammer business about paying taxes; including the democrats in the House and Senate. They went nuts over extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone. The rhetoric is that if we don’t continue to tax corporations, the ecomony will fall apart (what a joke). I believe the liberals made fun of Reagan and called this trickle down economics.

And yet, in states as well as nationally, we find democrats wanting to cut taxes to create jobs. Including obama, who is talking about cutting taxes for business in order to create jobs. It appears, when the the economy tanks, everyone, despite the rhetoric, realize tax cuts improve the economy.

My question is, why wait until the economy tanks to cut taxes? Why not do it all the time? If trickle down economics failed to work in the 80’s (as the left has said), why do it now? Is this hypocricy?

Posted by: Z at January 25, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #317924

Warped Reality said: “Regarding our corporate tax rate, 35% is indeed much higher than many of our peer economies. I’d support lowering it only if we eliminate the plethora of tax subsidies that enable nearly all corporations to pay a much lower rate.”

The important thing when talking about corporate taxes is not the nominal rate but the effective tax rate, i.e., the rate of taxes actually paid. When that is considered, US corporate tax rates are very competitive with other industrialized economies. In fact, US corporate taxes comprise a substantially lesser percentage of GDP than other industrialized nations. http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

Posted by: Rich at January 25, 2011 8:28 PM
Comment #317925

An additional analysis of US corporate tax rates and recommendations for change: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=784

Posted by: Rich at January 25, 2011 8:31 PM
Comment #317926

Simple minds deserve simple answers

KAP, RF, & Z,
Why $50.00/month may not sound like much, but add it up over a lifetime and you are talking over $50,000.00. Now I realize Old Men ain’t going to live long enough reap the benefits that today’s innovations and technology; however, with Home Windmill Generator Systems now costing less than $10,000.00 I do believe a savings of over $40,000.00 is worth a little bit of hard work.

Nonetheless, with the Old Men knowing no better I can see where their lack of education would leave them believing that Government and the Barons of Society just want them paying bills ans taxes until they die. So whom am I to tell them any different especially since the President and Congress is fighting to get their grandchildren to win the Race to the Top instead of foolishly agreeing to a Race to the Bottom under the promise it would make one Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 25, 2011 9:32 PM
Comment #317927

R.F., z, et al, WB was doing fine before you blew in here with your mind-numbing comments and attitudes, and once you all leave to make some other site and frequenters miserable, we’ll be fine again.
Has it not occurred to you that it is YOUR presence and mentality while railing against all things liberal that others are rejecting ?! We’ve actually been able to discuss a myriad of themes and subjects at a level you seem unable to reach over all these years.
So, ta ta and don’t let the door………….

Posted by: jane doe at January 25, 2011 11:59 PM
Comment #317928

Henry, The sustem may cost less then $10,000 initially but what are the state and local regs, will they allow windmills to be erected. What are the local codes for hook ups, By the time your through with all the BS you would have to go through to hook one up I can guarantee you the cost will be a lot more then $10,000. plus the maintenance and inspections. What happens when it breaks down, what will it cost to fix or replace. How much effect will weather have on the unit.

Posted by: KAP at January 26, 2011 12:17 AM
Comment #317929

I take it you didn’t read all the requirements that are needed to errect one of these things?

Posted by: KAP at January 26, 2011 12:48 AM
Comment #317930

KAP,
Here is a shocker. Every loacl and state government to include some home owner assoc. have regulations governing home windmill generator systems so unless you are being just plain silly or actually do not know here is an >a href=”http://www.adaohio.org/news/small-wind-energy-project-regulation”>Ohio Site which can help with regulations and tax information. For why there use to be very little money or professional help. Depending on where you live today help is just a few clicks away.

Besides, you can always ask your loval and state authorities to change the laws in your area especially if you want to drive the grandmother living down the street mad.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 26, 2011 1:18 AM
Comment #317931

Royal Flush-
When the economy tanked. You say that like it was just a mild recession.

But this wasn’t. It was worse even that the recessions that Reagan or Ford faced. That meant that even municipalities that were doing things right, that were keeping their finances straight are now feeling the strain. Worse yet, what sort of environment do you think was setting up much of that profligate spending, where it was happening? Wall Street’s derivatives system, which many municipalities are now paying for.

You like to pretend that the public sector of the economy is separate, but it isn’t. People make the same, totally transferrable money, they pay for the same groceries, the same consumer products, the same cars and houses, the same utility bills. When they are laid off, they go on the same unemployment everybody else does, and apply for the same government assistance otherwise.

As for energy, it’s fairly simple: certaint technologies will enable people to produce some of their own electricity, whether that’s solar, wind, fuel cell, or car.

Yes, that’s right, car. See, a plug in hybrid can share it’s excess power with the grid.

But whatever the source, that energy will enable people to pay less on their bill, and perhaps even break even or get money from the power company. These are not things, of course, that you can do with a coal-fired plant or a Nuclear reactor, now are they?

As for spending?

Look, until the nation is back on its economic footing, you’re essentially trying to pay back our debt, or slow down our generation of it on the backs of those who, if they lose their jobs because of your cuts, or if they lose money because of taxes, won’t be able to produce in the economy.

For austerity to work, there must be excess for austerity to carve away. Otherwise, it eats at the economy, and that undermines the revenue side, which regardless of GOP rhetoric cannot simply be wished away. People have to have the money to pay down the debt, they can’t pay it down out of their own degradation without not paying for something else in the economy.

As for Watchblog being washed up? It’s always nice to hear people dumping on a site they visit for free. Maybe it’s just my old-fashion sense of manners, but you don’t insult your host, even as you take them up on their hospitality.

KAP-
Well, you can always start a movement to make such generators acceptable. Or, the generators could be engineered to be more discreet, work at lower altitudes.

Or, you could go for solar, which being totally solid state, without moving parts, needs no such maintenance. If you really want to benefit from this, you have to be willing to take some chances.

z-
Some companies are going broke. But this is a bad economy, which undermines consumer buying power. A lot of people are going broke besides solar panel companies. The question is, are they going broke in general (some actual broad economic statistics about growth in the sector might be handy), or are you and Michelle Malkin simply picking a few examples and improperly generalizing their issues to the whole industry

I mean, your first comment spends the first few paragraphs just repeating every hackneyed, crude insult in the book about Obama.

Me? Typically, to make the Bush Administration, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and far too many Conservatives look stupid, I recount what they actually say and do. I mean, “I am not a Witch”? How much do I have to spin that to make that seem stupid?

How much do I have to spin it to make Palin’s play as victim in the last couple weeks seem self-centered and petty? Not much, not with a woman now in the hospital having had a bullet go through her head, not with all the folks in the ground or in the hospital.

How much do I have to spin to make policy proposals like freezing Medicare and turning it into vouchers that will become progressively less and less able to pay medical expenses seem radical? Not much.

How much do I have to spin to make Michelle Bachmann’s claim that the founding fathers eliminated slavery sound stupid? Not much.

What I have to say about them, I can say about what they actually do. I can point out the wrong they do, and explain why it’s wrong. I don’t have to monkey around with clever names, trying to impress fellow party members.

As for my relative age and experience? I would admit that I haven’t had the full chance to get as much experience as many of those who post here on both sides, and I can admit to that. At the same time, I believe what’s right is right, and if I do my best to understand what I hear about, to find out the truth, I can compensate for lacking experience by having a better grasp of the situation.

Tell me, how is the Republican Party’s grasp of the situation? How does a party with so many old people in it not benefit from all the experience it must have? If we’re measuring experience in years alone, and not depth and meaningfulness of that experience, then we’ll just reward people for their seniority, not their wisdom. Fools age, too.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 26, 2011 7:51 AM
Comment #317932

Henry, Here’s another shocker They only are efficent when the wind is 10-12mph. Erected in a .5 acre clear area. I read what they need to operate efficently obviously you didn’t. O and by the way at the bottom of the requirements it says PROFESSIONAL INSTILLATION IS RECOMMENDED. So even if I errected one I would still be at the mercy of the local electric co. so the savings after recouping instellation cost are minimal especially with the wind factor in my area very few days do we have winds constantly blowing at 10-12 mph. and they shut down at 8mph.

Posted by: KAP at January 26, 2011 8:03 AM
Comment #317933

KAP,
Here is where years of experience must give way to the education of youth. For why I can say that you are talking about ground wind and not the wind higher up; nevertheless, not wanting to waste the .5 acre plus required by taller single pole generators, deal with my neighbors objections, or sepens on ground wind speed I could just change the blades on the windmill and put a solar fan in front of it maintain the necessary wind speed.

In fact, having learned that warm air rises and cold air falls to the ground I can with a few calulations use that knowledge to produce wind speeds that will more than generate the electricity needed.

Yes, just as folks in the 70’s screamed about the idea of unleaded gas and the forming of the EPA. It seems today that the same folks are now trying to say the same thing about renewable energy and reducing carbon in the air. In fact, go back to the days of whale oil and you will find the same folks making the same cases. So do you want to stay living in the 20th Century or do you have the political smarts and will to move into the 21st Century?

Posted by: Henry Scglatman at January 26, 2011 8:33 AM
Comment #317934

Henry, The point I’m making is that windmills are NOT practical in an urban setting were properties are way less then .5 acres and the electricity used is triple if not more kwh’s per month that one if those things would produce plus the obstructions in the urban setting. In a rural setting, yes they would be practicle. Henry these things are in their infancy just as the video tape players and dvd players were once. Now you can buy a dvd player that is the size of a sony walkman. Maybe 10 to 15 years down the road technology will produce a power station that will be practicle in an urban area that can handle the loads that are needed but right now, NO. Just to power the small house I used to live in would need 3 of those windmills and would have to chop down half the trees in the neighborhood and have the power and phone and cable co’s. move their lines.
So I’m sorry but they would not be practicle.

Posted by: KAP at January 26, 2011 10:15 AM
Comment #317935

KAP,
Why I agree that the design of solar and windmill products do not take full advantage of what the sun and wind can do to help America become energy independent. And why most of that blames rest on our generation for many reasons. I do know that with very little innovation we can take the technology and produce more electricity than Commerce and Trade can use at prices unattainable by oil and energy companies today.

And why there will be political resistance to the idea of Individual Americans farming electricity in order to maintain their Standard of Living. Aware that Americas’ Corporations cannot compete in the Global Market of Cheap Labor and still afford to pay Amerixcas’ Labor and Management the wages of our parents. I personally see as a logical step in advancing the American Dream.

For why the Founding Fathers realized that no amount of military strentgh could rule the world. In their passion and writtings you can find where they talk about how future generations could come to dominate World Trade. So why it might take us some time to show the rest of the World how simple it is to make every Human on Earth economically viable and financially independent. With our Governments and Societies as well as Commerce and Trade having an endless hunger for energy, I do believe it is one product Individuals can farm in order to make a difference in their life.

Now granted it is a personal opinion since most of My Brothers and Sisters of the 70’s still believe that Corporations Handouts are better than Government Handouts. Nonetheless, it does keep with the Principles and Standards set forth in the Founding Documents of America and Humanity.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 26, 2011 12:54 PM
Comment #317936

Jane doe wrote; “R.F., z, et al, WB was doing fine before you blew in here with your mind-numbing comments and attitudes, and once you all leave to make some other site and frequenters miserable, we’ll be fine again.”

Glad Jane woke up enough to write this. Perhaps we’ll hear from her again in a month. Let the liberal love fest begin.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 26, 2011 2:39 PM
Comment #317937

Royal Flush,
With such easy pickings is it any wonder you are calling it a liberal love fest?

Because why it seems the days of misinformation are about over as Conservatives and Republicans now have to prove they are more than a mouth piece for President Bush. For why the two republican responses to the Presidents’ State of the Union Address last night did nor impress me, some of the commentators and pundits of the cable news entertainment channels made me realize they are still lost in the forest.

However, let us see if McConnell and Boehner can do any netter since their lack of cheerfulness and words last night has me wondering if they are even still in the game. For why Conservatives talk about smaller governmant and less taxes, I think we should be looking at going back to 1999 levels instead of the 2008 levels which included the large expantion of government under the old republican leadership.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 26, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #317938

Royal Flush-
When I write on the internet, I don’t waste my time on sites I don’t like. I don’t waste my time trying to make other people miserable.

I can live without the bells and whistles of new software, I can survive the slings and arrows of trolls, but it would seem a pitiable thing to simply sit around taking potshots at people, unloading corrosive vitriol on them, and then dumping on the forum they’ve helped make an ordeal.

If I haven’t been as frequent a visitor here, it’s not because I’m planning on quitting anytime soon. I’ve got other projects that I’m working on, and I’m trying to get some free time in my life that isn’t absorbed in the fun and games of responding to people who aren’t really any fun to talk with. I still think this is important, but I recognize the need to maintain my sanity, so I watch movies, write on my novel, and work on my music instead of just coming here.

I can’t for the life of me figure out how the Republicans got this negative, how they maintain this dark, hateful mood against the Democrats, without eating away at something of themselves. For all my opposition to the GOP, I don’t hate them. I pity them. I fear what their degeneration as a practical policy outlet means for the country. Once Republicans had a deserved reputation for foreign policy. Once, there was limits to how far they would take their supply side economics. Once, Republicans recognized that there were limits to how extreme their conduct could become, how far out their people could be perceived to go, and reined in the nuttier of their brethren.

Now? The GOP just all id, no superego, to put it in Freudian terms. There’s nobody telling folks to hold back, to exercise a reasonable level of doubt about the party platform and the policies.

Obama isn’t seen as more reasonable simply because there’s some kind of bias. It’s because people see that he’s able to give and take. He makes a point of projecting that appearance. The Republicans cannot repeatedly reject all compromises forever, and convince most that they’re the adults in the room on compromise.

Kevin L. Lagola-
It can and often is both. Some places overspent. Some places over cut their revenues. The question is how we resolve it.

Budgets should be focused on real world conditions.

Our current condition is that our current ability to produce falls far short of our current potential to produce, to the tune of about 900 billion dollars. That depresses revenues and raises , because people are idled, crippled financially. The economy gets crippled with them.

Austerity works if you have somebody who can afford to go off that aid. If not, then the pain only gets worse, and revenues do not rise as expected.

American corporations are not lacking in the cash or the capital to fund a recovery. They are lacking the customers that would bring them a return on investment. They lack them, though, because there aren’t jobs enough for people. The market, in other words, is reinforcing its own shortfall.

We need to invest in America.

Now you would say, we’re already in debt, how does getting more debt or not cutting things help us?

Well, to put it plainly, it’s all a matter of what you want to spend your leverage on. So long as current economic conditions persist, we will be running large deficits. Tax increases will harm the economy. Spending decreases will harm the economy, because there isn’t enough private finance, enough people working or hiring to take up the slack.

The money is just too tight, and current conditions keep it tight. We need to break that feedback cycle. Until we do, the private sector won’t join in the positive feedback cycle of positive economic development. It won’t be worth it. No sense in opening up stores that won’t get customers, or building equipment business won’t get started up to buy.

If we can push growth higher for long enough, then private money will have the incentive it needs to join in, and take over.

And then, and only then is austerity going to work. Otherwise, you’re simply compounding the problem that’s afflicting the economy and the budget alike.

As for rooting out corruption? All for it. Rooting out redundancy? All for it. Making government more efficient? All for it. Making Medicare more efficient, lowering healthcare costs? All for it. Maybe if we focused on the practical aspects of bringing back an economy, rather than the blue-sky theory, we could agree on much more.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 26, 2011 3:51 PM
Comment #317939

“I can’t for the life of me figure out how the Republicans got this negative, how they maintain this dark, hateful mood against the Democrats, without eating away at something of themselves.”

Well Mr. Daugherty, I can’t believe you can’t believe, especially after 8 years of absolute hatred toward President Bush and years of a Republican controlled Congress. What do you think the liberals were saying during those days? If you would really like to know when all the hate speech began, I can tell you. It was when the American people rejected the direction Clinton and the Democrats were taking the country and gave the Republicans control of the Congress. The Democrats could not adjust to losing power. The liberal media were even worse and they began a process of attacking anyone who opposed liberal Democratic theology. For you to make a statement like the one above, shows your novice understanding of what is really going on in politics. I know that you were around during the Bush years, because I have read your vitriol against President Bush and the Congress in the WB archives. It is no wonder people do not take you seriously and talk about your youth and lack of facts.

Posted by: Z at January 26, 2011 4:21 PM
Comment #317940

“We need to invest in America.”: Obama talking point for 2 years - what does this mean?

“American corporations are not lacking in the cash or the capital to fund a recovery…The money is just too tight, and current conditions keep it tight.”

So what is it; is there money or is there no money. If corporations are holding money, why don’t you tell us why? Could it be; they have no idea what obama is going to do? Would anyone invest, if they had no idea what it would cost them to operate, a year down the road?

Obama calls for investments, which means the Fed must print more money (because we are broke); which in turn de-values the dollar (and leads to inflation).

By the way Mr. Daugherty; when you answered earlier about solar panel companies going bell up and you said it was due to a downturn in the economy. You do realize that big oil and other subsidies are only a fraction of the subsidies given to green companies, i.e. solar panel companies, don’t you? Even with the big bailouts by the Feds, green tech is a bust.

Posted by: Z at January 26, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #317941

Z,
If I remember correctly the Democrats were having a love fest with the Republicans right after 9/11. And it wasn’t until the so-called Liberal Media started siding with President Bush and the Republican Party leading up to the 2002 Elections and the start of the Iraq War that all the name calling began.

For what ws Rush and Company saying about the Democrats who wanted proof of WMDs before Congress should vote on giving President Bush a blamk check before the 2002 Elections? In fact, can you name me one cable program that was not promoting the Iraq War or screaming at their guest who dare question President Bush?

No, the so-caled Liberals did not start their assualt on the Liberal Media or Republicans until the 2004 Elections when it came to light that America was losing the hearts and souls, torturing, and still had found no WMDs. So say what you want, but which side was the first to call the otherside Un-American?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 26, 2011 4:52 PM
Comment #317942

Henry, try googleing “Contract with America”

“CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. The Contract with America, a ten-point legislative program spearheaded by Newt Gingrich, the minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, served as a Republican blueprint for reform entering into the 1994 midterm election season. Candidates who signed the Contract agreed to support a balanced-budget amendment, welfare reform, and congressional term limits, among other items. Implementation of the provisions of the Contract became the rallying cry of the new Republican majority in the House in the spring of 1995. The work to enact the Contract resulted in modest legislative victories and pushed congressional politics in a more conservative direction. However, congressional Democrats successfully worked to block passage of most of the Contract’s initiatives, there by blunting its impact as a major issue in the 1996 federal elections. The polarized, partisan atmosphere created by fights over the Contract set the context for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998.”

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dah_02/dah_02_01017.html

“POLARIZED, PARTISAN ATMOSPHERE CREATED BY FIHTS OVER THE CONTRACT”

Posted by: Z at January 26, 2011 5:16 PM
Comment #317943

z-
Let me put this a better way. Corporations and rich folks are sitting on cash rather than investing in businesses or business expansions that would create jobs.

Why? Because the money’s not coming from below, from the customers to bring a return on investment.

We need to restore cashflow to the lower and middle class. When that happens, they can be the customers that make it worth it to do more business than they’re already doing. They can, in other words, drive growth.

You can’t grow an economy by retaining money at the top. Sooner or later, to make business worth it, the average person has to be able to pay for the products and services.

You can’t solve the debt or deficit problem, either, without that growth. Austerity depends on tapping that cashflow, or removing part of the government’s role.

Until that is less painful to the economy, austerity’s just going to make the economy worse, and that’s going to feed back into the fiscal situation. Spending cuts can hurt the economy just as tax hikes can, and for the same reason: less cashflow.

A balance has to be struck, not some headlong rush along one line of policies or another.

As for inflation? Do you actually look at real inflation figures? We’re nowhere near having that problem right now. In fact, we could use some. Too little inflation is an indication, in part, that there’s not enough growth in the economy, or strength in the returns on investment. An economy that’s in deflation is one that’s trying to get used to having less cash around, and that can be a vicious cycle of economic recession.

As for subsidies? I’m afraid it’s going in the other direction. Oil Subsidies and tax breaks are several times greater than green tech. I wonder, why are you so eager to pronounce green technology dead? If nothing else, it will allow people to use what they got more efficiently, make do with less. Efficiency’s good, right? Or are you taking the side of those who make their money from people being wasteful?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 26, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #317944

Z,
And no words sush as Un American was shouted. No, not unless you want to go back to the 60’s and early 70’s have we heard such disrespect than that captured by Rush and Company leading up to the Iraq War. In fact when the Repyblicans made the so-called Liberal Press make President Clinton produce evidence their was no calling conservatives Un-American. Yet, just a few years latter and the same demand placed on the so-called Liberal Media and everyone was Un-American.

No, republicans lost face in the 1990’s due to their arrogance and now it is looking as they will loss face once again due to their ignorance. For with the Media no longer taking what conservatives say at face value it seems that the Tea Party if it can hold its act together will replace the Neons as the party leaders. However, with leaders like Bauchman speaking for them I do believe the jury will be in before the 2012 Elections.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 26, 2011 5:45 PM
Comment #317945

Dems and libs continue to confuse spending for “what would be nice” with “what is necessary”. They refuse to believe that we simply can’t afford to do both right now. Obama, in reading his far from inspiring speech last night, merely reiterated the old cliches that dem presidents have used for years.

Rather than speak about cutting government spending back to levels of 5 or 6 years ago he wishes to freeze spending at current levels which I have read amounts to about $40 billion per year. That doesn’t put a dent in a $1300 billion per year budget or a $13000 billion national debt. That would be like putting a band-aide on a sucking chest wound. The patient will most certainly die.

He talks about improving education but does not say a word about teachers unions when most of the problems lies with them. One can not fix a broken wagon wheel by simply adding more oil to the bearings.

And so it is with most of the spending he talked about. Nice, but not necessary at this time.

Libs always seem to fall back on the old line that if government doesn’t spend us out of bad times the country will fail. They continue to believe that they can perform a Cesarean section on the goose laying the golden eggs to get those eggs sooner and disregard the risk to the life of the goose and its future laying ability.

We continue to borrow to pay our bills and it will not be long before no one will buy out debt without high risk premiums being attached. Out debt will quickly become unserviceable without demanding a huge percent of our GDP. When that happens, there will only be survival money available for anything else we need and none for what we want.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 26, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #317946

Z,

You do realize that big oil and other subsidies are only a fraction of the subsidies given to green companies,

Source?

From what I’ve read, The opposite is true.

RF,

Warped, it may be true about costs, but what will it cost to replace fossil fuel with solar panels? The infrastructure for fossil fuels already exists. We don’t have the public money to develop solar so it must come from the private sector. I just don’t believe congress is willing to borrow the money do you?

Exactly right, you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly why are debt is a problem. If we didn’t have to deal with the infrastructure problem, we could keep on the same track spending more and more on defense and entitlements as long as foreigners were willing to buy our debt. Here’s an excellent place to start the cuts. However, I can guarantee you that the GOP is not interested in making those cuts. They are only interested in doing a few symbolic “feel good” cuts, like the CPB, NEA or Amtrak. All the GOP rhetoric has been about cutting “non-defense discretionary spending”, even though this makes up less than a fifth of the budget and has not grown significantly recently.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 26, 2011 6:25 PM
Comment #317947

Warped, thanks for the link. I have read this before and agree that these cuts would be a good place to start. I don’t agree with you about the GOP only being interested in a “few symbolic feel good cuts”. But, one can only wait and observe to know for certain. There are fewer elected porkers in the party now than before the election.

What is your read as to how dems and libs feel about these cuts?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 26, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #317950

When the GOP made a symbolic repeal of PPACA it’s first legislative act, it sent the message that they care more about symbolism than action.

As for the Democratic Party?

I think they will be quite receptive to cuts in defense spending, or subsidies to corporations. However, if the GOP wants to exploit our fiscal troubles in order to fight the culture wars, I expect there will be considerable resistance. I also think the Left will try to reinstate the pre-Bush tax rates on people making more than a quarter million dollars annually in exchange for the cuts Republicans want to make in non-defense discretionary spending. Neither party will touch entitlement spending with a 10 foot long pole until after 2012.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 26, 2011 8:13 PM
Comment #317951

Just a word of caution about the latest mania for cutting federal deficits. The private sector has been on federal life support for the past three years. It has been dealing with a balance sheet problem far greater than the public deficit. The private sector debt to GDP ratio approached over 352% of GDP in 2008 far exceeding the current public deficit to GDP. The asset base supporting that debt imploded. It has been de-leveraging since that time and the money supply in the main economy has been decreasing (the massive gap between productivity capacity and demand). For all the efforts of the Federal Reserve, it has not been able to significantly increase borrowing. That translates into deflation or less than sufficient inflation. Hence, its efforts to increase asset prices by QE2 to increase the “wealth effect” to stimulate borrowing and its cautionary statements about premature fiscal cutbacks.

Austerity measures would appear on their face to have some validity. However, the countries that have been practicing austerity, i.e., Ireland, England, have not had a positive response thus far. In fact, many economists have become critical of the negative impact on their economies. The UK has just experienced two negative quarters of GDP after a period of growth due to fiscal and monetary stimulus. The Irish economy is also not improving and it appears the Parliament will vote no confidence and change the leadership.

The critical issue, in my opinion, is not the degree of deficit spending, but what it is being spent on. Now is the time to direct that spending to infrastructure and toward building a new sustainable economy for the future.

I would also remind our conservative commentators that the Reagan economic turnaround was built on extraordinary deficit spending that was maintained throughout his administration, eight years. Through tax cuts and deficit spending, he sent money into the private sector. Ultimately, when the economy expanded sufficiently, GH Bush and Clinton began a process of reigning in the deficits resulting in a budget surplus draining money from the private sector but reducing the public pressure on debt servicing.

Posted by: Rich at January 26, 2011 8:23 PM
Comment #317952

Rich,
The 352% of GDP held by the pricate sector is held by whom? For I believe the healthcare insurance industry owns a good share of that problem, I’m amazed that finding out the sectors who owe the must debt and the unsecured assets isn’t forthcoming in the Media. For with all the hype about housing and the call by Republicans and the Tea Party about the bailout I think it would be an eye opener to a lot of folks if they knew which corporations on the market today couldn’t stand on their own without government assistance.

Because why the DOW just broke 12,000 today, considering most corporations had their bdget set when the DOW was at 14,000 I do believe folks in the mid-west would freak to see the corporate farmers have to put up their places up for auction if the banks was to forclose on them like was done in the 1980’s. For if homes prices have went down in places by 50%, what does that mean for the Corporate Farm Land?

So why we discuss how the Democrats and Republicans are going to cut the Federal Budget and Debt, when talking about entitlements and our military we should be aware that certain sectors of private business is more worried than the middle class or those folks living on the East and West Coasts. In fact, any oil company who borrowed against their stock when it was selling at $130-140 a share can’t be setting to good if we decide to cut their subsidies by even a few dollars.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 26, 2011 9:06 PM
Comment #317954

Royal Flush-
If we were talking a downturn like that of the 70’s or early 90’s, you would be right. Government would be displacing private investment, and inflation would be a major concern, a potential problem.

Our problem right now, is that our economy’s new normal does not allow our economy to grow fast enough to recover our jobs. It enforces an output gap, a gap between what we can do in terms of work force and production capacity, and what we can do in terms of the cashflow and investment we have.

I’m normally a budget hawk. I wasn’t ****ting anybody about my true feelings when I was criticizing Bush on the budget. It wasn’t political, I really don’t like deficit spending.

But unlike so many Republicans, I recognize that there’s a such a thing as an Emergency. There’s a such thing as a time where the consequences of not leveraging the present at the future’s expense is that the future will a much less prosperous place.

If we don’t get out of this output gap, we’ll get the worst of both worlds; the ill effects of austerity, but without the job growth, or the actual paying down of debt and deficits that Republicans would promise on that account. It would be literally decades before the plan of the Representative who was the first rebuttal on Obama’s SOTU to actually achieve a balanced budget, and that only after about 60 trillion dollars worth of additional debt.

And your average American would see their taxes go up, while the rich saw theirs go down. It’s not right, and it’s not fair, especially considering it was those economic elites who got us into this mess.

I believe that Government can’t be the permanent solution to our economic problem, but it can catalyze an economic recover that gets us out of the deflationary rut. Then, out of that rut, we can deal with the inevitable problem of inflation, at a time when austerity not only can do some good, but is bearable by the economy. The Republicans are getting the situation backwards. They’re solving a problem of excessive cashflow in the economy, when the opposite problem is actually the trouble.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 27, 2011 7:52 AM
Comment #317955

Mr. Daugherty writes; “I believe that Government can’t be the permanent solution to our economic problem, but it can catalyze an economic recover that gets us out of the deflationary rut.”

From where I sit it looks like we have already done about all the “catalyzing” we can afford. How much more do you think is necessary, $1, $2, $3 or more trillion and what kind of time-line to prosperity do you predict…2, 3, 4, 5 or more years? The truth is Mr. Daugherty, neither you or Obama has any idea of how deep that bottomless pit of government borrowing and spending will become or when, if ever, it might work.

Under your scheme we just keep spending and borrowing until one of two things happen. It works or we go bankrupt. You are willing to gamble the goose and all the golden eggs on your scheme of spending our way to prosperity.

As for inflation, it is coming soon to our shores and is being exported by China which is experiencing high rates of inflation predicted to go ever higher.

For years liberals have pointed to Europe as the example of socialism we should follow. Now that Europe has realized the downside of all that government, with even bigger financial challenges than we have, we are told they are too timid and what has failed there will, someday, work here.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 27, 2011 1:26 PM
Comment #317956

Stephen and Royal Flush,
I am amazed that both of you lack the ability to envision the countless possibilities available to us in order to fix the current economic problem.

For why no government or private action alone is going to solve our problems; however, with a joint adventure in energy such as the Hoover Dam, the building of the Interstate Highway, and other major Public Projects designed to help the Private Sector become more competitive such as high speed rail and other high speed shipping both the government and [rivate sector can make some profit.

Instead, we have special interest groups trying to play one against the other in a hope that the special interest group doesn’y get left behind. For example; oil companies and those assoc. with the oil industry benefit if we cannot come up with a solution to Americas’ Energy needs; however, it doesn’t help the rest of America to include all consumers if we continue to pay $3-4.00/gal for gas.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 27, 2011 2:09 PM
Comment #317957

Henry, are you sure that China will loan us as few trillion for those projects? China will soon be exporting the inflation they are experiencing to our shores. Do you understand what inflation will do to payments on our national debt?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 27, 2011 3:24 PM
Comment #317958

Our inflation rate is 1.5% That’s not just low, that’s unhealthily low, especially given the fact that we’ve got such high unemployment. Nothing indicates that inflation is an imminent danger. Nothing, that is, besides the rhetoric of those who want to replay the Reagan policy of the early Eighties.

I’d say, we should do what it takes to get the economy out of this situation, and then do what it takes to rein in inflation. Reason why I talk about things in that order, is that so long as unemployment remains high, growth anemic, and the average American poorer, there won’t be enough growth to make inflation a problem.

Tackling the problem of inflation now is like tackling the problem of a trade agreement with Japan in 1942.

You can talk about cutting open the golden egg laying goose, but that’s just a cute bit of rhetoric. This isn’t an aesop fable. This is a living breathing economy, one that’s putting out much less than it’s capable of, with private business standing on the sideline. How long do we have to wait for investors to come back? How long do we have to suffer unemployment this high, especially with your folks not planning to extend unemployment benefits, as most other Congresses have throughout history?

You’ve got nothing but goose-eggs, when it comes to efforts to help our economic recovery, and those goose-eggs are nowhere near golden. Come back when you’ve got an actual plan to bring back the economy that’s got a prayer of doing the job.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 27, 2011 4:33 PM
Comment #317959

Royal Flush-
As for payments on national debt? Well, inflation would actually make those payments cheaper, since dollars would be worth less, while the debt remains at a certain level. It’s interest rates you have to worry about. It’s better to have a debt that has a greater money supply to absorb it, than one where the payments are more expensive, thanks to the interest being added to the principle.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 27, 2011 4:35 PM
Comment #317960
China will soon be exporting the inflation they are experiencing to our shores.

Where are you getting this from? China is experiencing inflation because their government is trying to keep the value of the RMB artificially low by buying are debt. This Chinese policy is actually creating deflationary pressure on the US economy because China is buying up US Currency and taking it out of circulation whenever they buy our debt.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 27, 2011 5:13 PM
Comment #317961

buying are debt.

should be

buying our debt.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 27, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #317962

Obamacare Is Already Falling Apart

“The Department of Health and Human Services estimated in July that it would now be insuring 375,000 people who had been previously shut out of the insurance market. But the administration recently admitted that only about 8,000 people with preexisting conditions had actually signed up.

That’s about 2 percent of the projected enrollment.

The next component of the bill to fail may be the most important one — the deeply detested individual mandate, which requires the uninsured to either get health coverage or pay a fine.

In both Arizona and Oklahoma, voters have approved state constitutional amendments aimed at outlawing the mandated purchase of health insurance.

Nearly three-quarters of voters in Missouri signed off on a similar ballot initiative earlier this year. Twenty-six state attorneys general and the National Federation of Independent Business are currently pursuing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the mandate. Virginia’s attorney general has mounted a separate lawsuit, as has a group of citizens in Ohio.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the failure of the individual mandate well before the reform law passed. A July report from the nonpartisan agency predicted that by 2016, four million people would defy the mandate and pay the fine for remaining uninsured. All told, according to CBO, about 21 million people will be uninsured in 2016 — most of whom will be exempt from the fines altogether.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/27/opinon-obamacare-is-already-falling-apart/

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 27, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #317963

How is it a “failure of the individual mandate” if people choose to pay the fine rather than purchase insurance?

This is a country where we respect someone’s right to choose what to do, if someone would rather pay the fine than purchase insurance, who cares?

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 27, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #317964

Warped…the article said…”All told, according to CBO, about 21 million people will be uninsured in 2016 — most of whom will be exempt from the fines altogether.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 27, 2011 7:10 PM
Comment #317965

Warped wrote; “This is a country where we respect someone’s right to choose what to do.

AH…I see, freedom is choosing to purchase the latest product the government is pushing or pay a fine. I wonder when we will pay a fine for not purchasing the car the government is pushing?

I do not understand how some, who claim to support the constitution, can be so easily persuaded to give up their individual rights.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 27, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #317966

Royal Flush,

Destroy an individual mandate, destroy a private sector solution for universal health care. This a penny wise and pound foolish approach.

Today, the largest employers of Americans are small businesses. They are struggling to provide any health insurance for their employees. Combine that fact with the fact that even larger companies are cutting back on health insurance and even attempting to divest themselves of the responsibility, the demand for a public alternative will only accelerate.

This will ultimately result in a taxation supported government public option health insurance. It can be no other way. It will not be tolerable for an increasing percentage of Americans to be without health insurance. So, destroy the individual mandate, if you so desire. But, remember that direct Medicare taxation has never been found to be unconstitutional and the public support for Medicare is so great that it will never be repealed or found unconstitutional. Expansion of Medicare or its equivalent is the logical alternative to a failed individual mandate.

Posted by: Rich at January 27, 2011 8:30 PM
Comment #317967

RF, I’ve already stated my opinion that the individual mandate could be improved with some sort of system that allows people to sign waivers to let insurance companies discriminate based on preexisting conditions in exchange for not paying the fine, but it would only work if we repealed EMTALA.

But I’d like to address your larger point. Right now, there are a plethora of different services currently provided by the government. Every citizen of the United States is compelled by law to purchase these services via taxes or to emigrate and relinquish US citizenship. How is this mandate worse than any of these other mandates? Just to name a few, we are mandated to pay for our national security, our roads and our justice system. We are also mandated to pay for our education system.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 27, 2011 8:34 PM
Comment #317969

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Hospital_Service

Our founders knew how to handle our Constitution…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 27, 2011 10:40 PM
Comment #317971

Royal Flush,
China might be able to increase the prices of the prpdicts shipped to America; however, in doing so she is risking less sales. And with over 1 billion citizens looking for work within her borders. I do believe letting America borrow a few trillion is not out of the question. Considering if the American Consumer can’t afford to buy their products at reasonable prices China woulf suffer more.

Now, as far as mandated healthcare insurance I would look back at when America first started mandating autonobile insurance to see how compliance went. Besides as long as the Conservatives and Republicans keep talking about repealing Obama Care and filing law suits why would one be invlined to get health care insurance?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 28, 2011 6:31 AM
Comment #317972

For all the hype over the past 2 years about the Republicans shutting down the government through the filibuster and saying NO, it might be interesting to note a Senate 84-12 decision yesterday to keep the filibuster in place. SO MUCH FOR THE HYPE AND LIBERAL TALKING POINTS. Once more, liberals have been shown to be hypocrits.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 28, 2011 12:01 PM
Comment #317973

CT, I don’t understand what your point is. Both senators voting for and against that measure voted for keeping the filibuster. There was never any serious proposal to remove it.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2011 12:08 PM
Comment #317974

Every citizen of the United States is compelled by law to purchase these services via taxes or to emigrate and relinquish US citizenship. How is this mandate worse than any of these other mandates? Just to name a few, we are mandated to pay for our national security, our roads and our justice system. We are also mandated to pay for our education system.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 27, 2011

It is a great leap to get from the constitutional legality of being taxed, with the revenue from those taxes being allocated for spending by congress, and levying a penalty on an individual for not purchasing a product.

I don’t think anyone believes that taxes are some form of punishment for not complying with some government law or regulation. Being levied a fine for not purchasing something is not a tax and is a punishment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 28, 2011 1:17 PM
Comment #317975

Royal Flush,

I don’t understand conservative thinking on this issue. It would seem consistent with conservative principles that a person who has a legal right to emergency medical care should have some responsibility to pay for that right. If a person chooses not to purchase private insurance, it would seem entirely reasonable for the government to assess a tax to compensate the public who funds the availability of emergency medical services.

Posted by: Rich at January 28, 2011 6:13 PM
Comment #317976

Rich writes; “It would seem consistent with conservative principles that a person who has a legal right to emergency medical care should have some responsibility to pay for that right.”

Rich, those who receive emergency care without having insurance are in fact billed for those services and the treating emergency room attempts to collect what is owed. The patient does have the responsibility to pay contrary to what you wrote.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 28, 2011 7:11 PM
Comment #317977

Royal Flush,

I fully understand that anyone who receives emergency room services is charged and every effort (hospital liens, etc.) is used to collect the bill.

I was talking about the right to have available emergency services. The establishment of a network of emergency medical services capable of providing care to anyone regardless of ability to pay is a costly enterprise. In essence, the public sector is obligated to fund a catastrophic insurance policy for all citizens regardless of whether they have or do not have private insurance to cover the costs.

It is also clear that the uninsured are unlikely, no matter how aggressive collection, to pay for services actually received. Have you checked lately as to what the costs would be for a major heart attack? Or a stroke or multiple life threatening crash injuries? It is astronomical.

In essence, why should the general public provide catastrophic health insurance for those that are unwilling or too stupid to purchase or enroll in available health insurance?

Posted by: Rich at January 28, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #317978

Rich…your backtracking now. I countered your statement with fact so now you wish to change the subject. Why is that? Your questions now have been asked and answered many times.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 28, 2011 8:17 PM
Comment #317979

Royal Flush,

I never backtracked. I always said that I was talking about the “right” to emergency medical services. It is nothing more than a free national catastrophic health insurance policy paid for by the general public. Each county in this country must budget and staff an emergency service capable of providing catastrophic care to any and all citizens including those without medical insurance.

Why don’t you answer the simple question: is that fair? Is it fair for those capable of paying for catastrophic coverage but unwilling to purchase it, to free ride on the rest of the public?

Posted by: Rich at January 28, 2011 8:39 PM
Comment #317980

“CT, I don’t understand what your point is. Both senators voting for and against that measure voted for keeping the filibuster. There was never any serious proposal to remove it.”

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2011 12:08 PM

Warped, you are becoming like all the other argumentative liberals on WB. You argue, just for the sake of arguing. I have been reading on WB for the past 2 years about how the Republicans (the party of NO) has used the filibuster to block everything obama wanted, and many even called for the abolishment of the filibuster and now you want to argue and say they didn’t. Sorry, but your wrong. If Reid did not want the filibuster done away with, he would have never allowed it to come to the floor. How many Republicans voted to do away with the filibuster? Below are a a few links explaining the call from the left to kill the filibuster.

“Kill the Filibuster
Bob Fertik January 09, 2010
Petition
It’s time for the Senate to abolish the filibuster.
The filibuster is undemocratic and contradicts the core principle that legislation should become law by majority vote. The mere threat of a filibuster can bring the business of the Senate and the American people to a halt.
The filibuster allows a minority of 41 Senators to block the will of 59 Senators. Even when 60 Senators support a bill, the 60th Senator can hold the bill hostage to individual demands that can warp important legislation.
We call on every candidate for Senate in 2010, and every Senator who will continue to serve in the 112th Congress, to pledge to vote, on the first legislative day in 2011, to change the Senate’s rules to eliminate the filibuster.
(This petition will be delivered to all current 100 Senators and all identifiable non-serving 2010 candidates for the Senate)”

http://www.democrats.com/kill-the-filibuster

“How we can destroy the filibuster
by: Chris Bowers
Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 18:23

For months, I have been calling for the complete elimination of the filibuster in the Senate. Many Open Left commenters have agreed upon the need and desirability for its elimination, but one question remains: is there any realistic hope of rounding up 51 Democratic Senators to actually destroy it?”

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15963/how-we-can-destroy-the-filibuster

“Democrats have used the filibuster against Republicans when the GOP was in the majority, most recently from 2001 to 2006. Back then, Democrats were great defenders of the right to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominations. At one point in 2003, Reid spent more than eight hours on the Senate floor protesting the fact that Republicans spent so much time on four disputed judges instead of on joblessness. Reid read six chapters from a book he’d written about his tiny hometown of Searchlight, Nev.
Today, Reid is the Senate majority leader and complains bitterly about GOP delaying tactics.
To make it easier to end a filibuster, Harkin has proposed gradually reducing the number of votes needed to cut off debate — from 60 votes on the first attempt, to 57 votes if another vote is held two days later, and eventually to 51 votes if the debate drags on long enough.
“Under this proposal, a determined minority could slow any bill down,” Harkin said in his recent letter to colleagues. “A minority of members, however, could not stymie the majority by grinding the Senate to a halt, as sadly too regularly happens today.”
But few senators show much inclination to tamper with a tool that gives enormous leverage to either party when it finds itself in the minority.
“It’s a real obstacle to getting much done, but it’s ingrained into the Senate,” said the Senate’s historian, Donald A. Ritchie. “It’s the institution the senators enacted themselves. They do have the power to change it.”
Some senators’ refusal to even consider changes infuriates Democrats in the House, where a simple majority prevails and debate is strictly limited. Frustrated liberals say that Senate rules are a relic of another era that hobbles Congress’ ability to address the nation’s problems.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/10/nation/la-na-filibuster10-2010jan10/2

http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/01/democrats-seek-to-end-fillibuster-cede-power-to-executive-branch/

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 28, 2011 10:08 PM
Comment #317982

WHERE are you PEOPLE from?? I live in a small city in the middle of America…we have 2 major hospitals…when i first moved here I could not figure out WHY……BUT
One was public…one was private.
Way back when…if you did not have insurance & you were about to have a baby…the private hospital could refuse you & send you to the public hospital…NO LONGER POSSIBLE/LEGAL to do that!
Not that it matters but when I had my first child….the care at the public hospital was worse than that at the private hospital(my 2nd child)…doctors at the public hospital were ‘contractors’…the hospital was not responsible for what they do. It was not the hospitals responsibility that I was given an unneccesary C-section by a doctor who had priveleges at their facility.
Public vs. Private
We have to have accountability…health care…education..minimum wage…whatever….these things ALL need to be LOCAL…we are not zombies or androids….we are individuals…a federal..one state program will never work for all of us!!!

Posted by: dawn at January 29, 2011 1:36 AM
Comment #317984

Royal Flush-
He’s basically right. You’re just assuming the bill gets paid, which it doesn’t always. In the meantime, the hospital has to eat the cost, in one way or another.

This is why you guys screwed up on the derivatives market.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 29, 2011 9:38 AM
Comment #317985

Mr. Daugherty, I assumed nothing of the sort. I wrote that patients will be billed and a collection effort made.

Rich wrote; “It is nothing more than a free national catastrophic health insurance policy paid for by the general public.”

As Reagan would say…”There you go again”. It is not free. Patients are billed and a collection effort is made. For those who can not pay the hospital charges it off as a bad debt on its income taxes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 29, 2011 1:39 PM
Comment #317986

The federal aid represents just a fraction of what hospitals bill for emergency health-care services provided to illegal immigrants. Hospitals that care for such immigrants say they typically collect about 20 percent or less of what they bill for immigrants’ care, compared with 33 percent of all their billed charges.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 29, 2011 6:16 PM
Comment #317987

Royal Flush,

Hospitals have a legal obligation to provide emergency stabilization services to any person seeking admission regardless of ability to pay or insurance. That can and does include extensive and expensive medical services. Think heart attack, stroke, serious life threatening injuries from an accident, etc.

That amounts to a de facto publicly funded catastrophic health insurance plan for the uninsured. While hospitals attempt to collect the charges for services rendered, the amount un-reimbursed is enormous. In 2003, it was estimated at $30.6 billion. That amount is primarily payed by the taxpayer through federal and state matching programs. The remainder is written off (tax loss) or passed onto private insurers.

I just don’t understand your reluctance to admit that the US is already paying for a catastrophic plan for the uninsured. What else would you call a situation in which the government insures that each and every citizen in the US will receive life sustaining medical services regardless of the lack of private insurance or ability to pay. You will get an emergency by-pass operation to save your life if you have a heart attack.

Posted by: Rich at January 29, 2011 7:13 PM
Comment #317988

As for who pays for the un-reimbursed medical costs incurred by the uninsured, according to a 2004 study by the Kaiser Foundation, approximately 85% of the costs or $34.6 billion in 2004 was paid for by a combination of federal, state and local tax dollars. Of that amount, 2/3rds was paid for by the federal government in the form of disproportionate share hospital payments (DHS). http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf

Posted by: Rich at January 29, 2011 9:30 PM
Comment #317991

Here’s what I don’t get: Throughout 400+ comments here, the conservatives real hard spot is the government mandate to buy insurance. constiturtional violation of ones rights. But every single one of them I guarantee already has insurance. So your concern is for the folks who can’t afford health insurance - right? So you are saying the poor aren’t smart enough to speak for themselves? You conservatives are so soft and so elitist. I, for one, say let the poor speak for themselves.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 31, 2011 12:41 PM
Comment #317992

I finally figured out the difference between conservatives and liberals:
Liberals have expectations of people to stand up and not be a burden on society. Conservatives defend with all their might the idea that it’s okay to be a nothing and be provided for by government or church or whoever. Just don’t have any expectations of anyone.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 31, 2011 1:14 PM
Comment #317993

Schwamp, all they really want, and the only thing that will make them happy, is to be the boss of the world. They want to be in charge of everything…and to be mercurial enough to pull it off.

Posted by: jane doe at January 31, 2011 2:43 PM
Comment #317994

Royal Flush-
Well, maybe you don’t assume it, but your system does assume that the hospital gets paid, somehow, some way. How does it do that? The same way stores pay for people who don’t pay for their merchandise when they take it from the store. Uninsured folks are not like shoplifters, to be sure, since the law demands that they be guaranteed the services necessary to keep them alive, but in practical terms, it’s the same problem.

You may not like our solution, even though it was once your solution, but the issue is, you don’t have a solution. Meanwhile, since employers above a certain level are forced to provide health insurance to full-time employees, businesses are shortsheeting a lot of people and short-staffing themselves to deal with the expense.

We can’t pretend the problem isn’t there and make it go away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2011 4:14 PM
Comment #317995

The whole insurance mandate is a moot point, another Fed Judge just declared it un-constitutional. It will fall apart in the SC…

Posted by: Z at January 31, 2011 4:15 PM
Comment #317998

I just read that decision also Z. I believe the SC will find the entire bill unconstitutional. We can then work to forge a health care bill, free from the influence of pork, crafted in the light of day, in the open, with public scrutiny, and one which helps those in need while maintaining fiscal sanity and individual freedom.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2011 7:36 PM
Comment #318000

“You may not like our solution, even though it was once your solution, but the issue is, you don’t have a solution.”

Exactly! Conservatives want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist.

Eventually, the American public is going to demand an alternative if the current approach is deemed unconstitutional or fails for some other reason. I think that the opponents of this act are going to be surprised as to what the public will demand. Hint. The public option was highly popular as well as Medicare for all. You will reap what you sow.

Posted by: Rich at January 31, 2011 7:42 PM
Comment #318002

“We can then work to forge a health care bill, free from the influence of pork, crafted in the light of day, in the open, with public scrutiny, and one which helps those in need while maintaining fiscal sanity and individual freedom.”

You have had a lot of time to consider a health plan. So whats the plan?

Posted by: Rich at January 31, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #318008

Although the judge may only deal with how the case was presented the fact still remains that many people are being harmed by the system as it currently stands. Which to me is funny considering the Conservatives and Tea Party are so taxes and big government. For I don’t believe they realize how much impact the uninsured has on the size of government or the bill the taxpayer picks up every year.

However, it is the out of pocket expenses of the individual and loss of income of the hospital which will lead to change. For why I doubt if the Baby Boomers will give up one dime they think they are owed, I doubt if they know what will happen to senior care if they cut the budget to medicare in order to pay for the debt ran up by the Baby Boomers. Could we be looking at repeating how the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s treated their grandparents?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 31, 2011 8:32 PM
Comment #318011

Nobody on here is giving any more of an answer than the canned response from any number of representatives who have been questioned. You don’t any of you know what the plan will be, you just keep saying what it won’t be. That is not…an answer, and it won’t keep you afloat forever. The time is closer than ever for which you’ll have to produce, and the outcome looks bleak!

Posted by: jane doe at January 31, 2011 8:58 PM
Comment #318014

jane doe and rich; why don’t we let the Republican controlled Congress determine what will be in the next HC Bill. It would be hard for RF and I to tell you what is going to be in it, since we are not elected Congressmen. In fact, we still don’t know what is in obamacare, in fact Pelosi said we wouldn’t, so why are you asking what will be in the replacement bill?

Posted by: Z at January 31, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #318016

z, you’re not fooling anyone in here any more than the Republicans are fooling a large percentage of the general population. You (they) don’t have a clue what to present as a well-laid out option. All they know and care about is blocking the Obama package specifically, and a Democratic package in general. It is just more stall, deny, reject and denounce, but in the meantime, they’ve wasted their efforts by not putting together some legitimate considerations.

Posted by: jane doe at January 31, 2011 10:21 PM
Comment #318323


“This is why you guys screwed up on the derivatives market.”

There is plenty of blame to be shared by both parties when it comes to the derivatives market. Gramm wrote and Clinton signed the deregulation of the markets. Larry Summers is the chief architect of the housing derivative and he, Ruben, and Greenspan took out the whistle blowers.

Clinton initiated it and Bush saw it through to it’s glorious conclusion. A glorious conclusion for those who put the money in their pockets; like Summers, Rubin, Greenspan, the Clinton’s, the Bush’s and the Harvard University good old boys club.

As a progressive, I am not inclined to defend Obamacare.

Posted by: jlw at February 8, 2011 6:42 PM
Post a comment