Woman to Woman

By El Perro

April 27, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

While I’m glad that there finally is a worthy W2W topic to talk about, it’s a shame that Andrea has proven herself to be totally unqualified to speak about anything related to economics or even fair press coverage, and instead wants to lead the cheers for the anti-Bush dimbulbs with her muddled statements:

Things are looking pretty grey out there, at least in part because the current administration seems to have forgotten what they learned in Econ 101: Out-of-control spending plus tax cuts equals a massive deficit.

Apparently you need to retake Econ 001, Andrea. Budget deficits have nothing to do with recessions. Nor does the Iraq War. As long as the government keeps spending, in whatever form, money is being churned through the economy. In fact, with the Bush tax cuts, the average person has more disposable income to spend than they did under Clinton.

It’s hard to fault Bush apologists for wanting to foist blame on media hype, but even most Republicans believe that neighborhoods filled with foreclosures do more to undermine consumer confidence than dramatic headlines.

Anyone with any brains has seen the “housing crisis” coming for more than a year now. For proof, go back and look at my blogs from last year. The record number of foreclosures is due to 2 reasons: (1) Too many investors jumped on the “house flipping” bandwagon the past few years in which they bought a second or third home at a greatly inflated price with the idea of reselling it quickly for a nice profit. Simple supply and demand laws eventually came into play in which the supply of new homes far exceeded the demand for new homes, such that the new homes weren’t worth what the investors paid for them. (2) Too many home buyers who actually OCCUPY the houses bought homes they couldn’t afford utilizing unrealistic “interest-only” loans. All of these loans had a “balloon” note attached to them, such that the “interest only” portion of the repayment plan only lasted for 2-3 years. Ditto for the “Adjustable Rate Mortgage” loans (ARM loans). For whatever reason, these unrealistic home buyers didn’t believe they would actually have to pay the principal on their over-priced homes at some point. Worse yet, Hillary Clinton is now proposing that if she’s elected, her plan is for the government to buy back these soon-to-be-repossessed houses, and resell them to the stupid homebuyers at “a price they can afford”. Biggest bunch of crap I ever heard of—conservative people who live within their means bailing out idiots who bought houses they couldn’t afford.

To remain viable, news may be presented with distracting flash these days (we can thank former GOP politico Roger Ailes and his FOX News Network for starting that trend), but the substance is still there. Like the new tone or not, the alternative is still unthinkable; Soviet-style press restrictions where the government decides what we should hear and how we should hear it.

More BS. FOX news didn’t invent sensationalism; it has always existed. I think the greater truth is that the 90% registered Democratic press has done all that it could for the past 7 1/2 years to put a bad face on ALL news due to their unhappiness that Bush won the last two elections fair and square. I still hear rumblings that somehow the US Supreme Court GAVE the election to Bush in 2000. The fact is that a Florida Circuit Court of Appeals Judge correctly ruled that the deadline had passed for recounts, then the Florida Supreme Court incorrectly tried to overrule the long-established deadlines. It took the US Supreme Court to enforce the original (correct) ruling. Subsequent recounts by the UPI and AP showed that Bush would have won even if the illegal recounts had gone forward. By asking for recounts in only selected counties, while not asking for the military absentee votes to be counted which were thrown out on a technicality involving the lack of a postal mark, Gore violated the due process rights of ALL the citizens of Florida, a fact which was noted during the original trial.

The fact that 75 percent of Americans believe we’re in a recession has more to do with varying definitions of recession than anything else, and our desire to face down all the indicators of tough times ahead. “We are absolutely going to have a recession,” David Wessel, one member of the trustworthy financial press, declared in one interview. Wessel, Economics Editor for the Wall Street Journal, went on to explain that “the problem with predicting a recession is this — when it’s obvious you’re in a recession, it’s too late to do anything about it. But there’s no way to know for sure if you’re going to have one.” A frustrating reality, but most Americans are handling it well — still spending while making job, education and real estate decisions with an eye on the storm clouds.

Due to the crisis in the financial markets, coupled with the high gas prices, it’s basically a natural consequence that consumer spending is slowing down. BFD. You can’t have year after year of economic growth with no downturns. Economic cycles are just that: cycles. The very word cycle implies both upward and downward motion. If you listen to the 90% registered Democratic press, you might think otherwise. When I think back to the recession which occurred at the end of the Clinton years, there was no outcry at all. Only stories about Monica. Why the double standard??

Shaunti seems to share her Heritage Foundation spokesperson’s optimism for an economic pick-me-up by the end of this year. I hope she’s right, but if the next economic surge takes place during a Democratic administration, will they praise our new president for picking up the pieces? Or will that good fortune be a media illusion as well?

The bottom line is that US Presidents have little to do with economics, except when they raise or lower taxes. Since both Hillary and Obama both propose to RAISE taxes, which will hurt the economy if anything, I hardly see how Andrea is so optimistic about a Democratic-controlled White House stimulating the economy. Ultimately, as USinUK pointed out recently, the inter-bank interest rates, which are set by the Federal Reserve Board, have more to do with the health of our economy by impacting the availability of capital than anything else the government does.

BUT—I don’t expect much real economic analysis this week from the anti-Bush crowd. Just more wailing and gnashing of teeth.

By El Perro

April 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

Like the new tone or not, the alternative is still unthinkable; Soviet-style press restrictions where the government decides what we should hear and how we should hear it.

And BTW, Andrea, your grasp of the proper usage of a semi-colon is about as poor as your grasp of economic ideas. The proper part of punctuation in the above sentence should have been a colon, not a semi-colon. The grammatically correct sentence should have been “Like the new tone or not, the alternative is still unthinkable: Soviet-style press restrictions where the government decides what we should hear and how we should hear it”. Sadly, you have a lot of company among your Lib buddies here on the blog regarding the improper usage of a semi-colon. The amazing part is that some of them make their living by writing, as you do.

Furthermore, it would have been better to say “in which the government” rather than “where the government”. Better luck next time.

By Copyleft

April 28, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

Spam and El Perro talking to himself—which is to say, more spam. Kinda pathetic, what this blog has become.

By Kim

April 28, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, by citing these people, “In an interview, Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow” you immediately discredit yourself.

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

kim -

actually, I know the JD Foster she cites (husband of a good friend of mine) - he’s actually a great guy, despite where he works.

however, this is all a part of the “the economy is all the librul media’s fault” meme that Fox News has started (Google Fox Recession and check out what pops up - especially the John Lott op-ed).

we went round and round on this issue last week - ONE definition of a recession is 2 back-to-back quarters of negative growth. There are economists who think that definition is limiting, so they look at other factors (employment, etc.). and, again, when Alan Flipping Greenspan (remember him?? heralded as a guru during his tenure in the Fed?? Mr. Irrational Exuberance) says that he thinks we’re heading into a recession, PEOPLE LISTEN TO HIM. He first made that statement in March 2007. Since then, other economists have joined him by either saying that we have a 50/50 chance of going into recession or saying that we’re actually in one now.

What is the media expected to do? ignore them and be cheerleaders, hoping that the public doesn’t notice the number of foreclosure signs they pass on their way to work? or the number of their friends who are looking for part-time employment to supplement their income? or what they’re paying at the grocery and gas station??

Like it or not, Shaunti, the US is getting a major economic swirly at the moment - unemployment is up and rising, as is inflation … pay is down … people have tapped out all the equity in their homes, so they don’t have much to fall back on … banks are limiting their loans to individuals and companies. Economists originally predicted a short, shallow recession/downturn that would only be in the first half of the year - now, most of them are revising it to last most of 2008.

but, yeah, it’s all the media’s fault.

By LaughoftheWeek

April 28, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Spam and El Perro talking to himself—which is to say, more spam.

and it is only Monday.

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Spam and El Perro talking to himself—which is to say, more spam. Kinda pathetic, what this blog has become.

Anytime you’re ready to discuss issues—specifically why the Democratic platform is a disaster for America—I’m ready, CopyLeft. But instead, all you want to do is whine about the good ol’ days on the blog (whatever they were). I guess it’s too much trouble to actually think for yourself and advance a position. Much easier to whine and pass the crying towel around. The bottom line is that you have nothing to say.

By Mara

April 28, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

let’s be honest…”recession” may NOT be the technical term for the current economic slowdown, but Jane Six-pack really doesn’t care what the smart guys call it when she’s shelling out $120.00 for half a buggy of groceries. Nor does she need CNN or the NYT (flagships of the librul media) to tell her that things are looking grim. Not when her husband has been searching for a job for three months, the savings is gone, and the mortgage is due.

Does she care if the term she and her friends use for this period of slowdown isn’t the “correct” term? Heck, no she doesn’t. All she knows is that her “bring home pay” hasn’t changed in three years, food costs more, gas costs more, the phone costs more, water, heat, you name it…it costs MORE.

She doesn’t need to be told that things aren’t good when she knows more than one person who’s given up on trying to find a job comparable to their old one, she sees “foreclosure” signs popping up like spring flowers, and the worth of her own house has dropped to less than she still owes on it.

If I never read a newspaper or watched a television I’d STILL know that things are not good. Simply look around.

(btw, perro…since you’re setting yourself up as the grammar/spelling monitor this week - I’m surprised you let Andrea get away with “she wants anchor folks to put down their sheath of notes…”. As we all know, a “sheath” is something that cacoons something else, like a knife or wire, etc. What Andrea meant was “sheaf of notes”)

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

So, once again, here is the Democratic platform with my responses. JokesOn and USinUK have been able to offer opinions about health care, but I haven’t seen any discussion about even one other position. The difference between you and me, CopyLeft, is that I know why I’m voting Republican. I doubt if you even know what the candidate’s positions are:

HEALTH CARE

Both say they have a goal of providing universal coverage and will try to lower costs to make it more affordable. The biggest difference is that Clinton would require everyone to get health insurance while Obama would not. Clinton says her plan is the only one that is truly universal because people won’t get coverage unless they are required to, similar to auto insurance. Obama says people will get insurance only if they can afford it.

I’m so glad that both Obama and Hillary “know what’s best for me” and are willing to use the point of a gun to extract money from me so that I am forced to pay for other people’s poor health due to their poor lifestyle choices. The comparison of health care insurance to auto insurance is completely invalid. Auto insurance is essentially liability insurance—it protects other people we might harm due to an auto accident. Poor lifestyle choices primarily affect the one making the poor choices.

HOUSING

Both want to help homeowners facing foreclosure, but Clinton’s plan includes a five-year freeze on interest rates for all subprime mortgages, which often go to borrowers with the poorest credit. Obama disagrees with the proposed freeze, saying it will drive up interest rates and keep other people from getting mortgages.

Both candidates also support legislation to help homeowners with “underwater mortgages” — meaning their homes are worth less than the mortgage. That legislation would provide government guarantees for their mortgages, but Clinton wants to go one step further than Obama. She wants the federal government to buy underwater mortgages and reduce payments to a level homeowners can afford.

Brilliant plan: Give anyone who purchased a home they couldn’t afford more of MY money so that they can continue to live in luxury while I continue to live below my means. The upshot of all these “bail-out” schemes is simple: No lender will ever give out a “sub-prime” mortgage ever again, so that poor people will NEVER have a chance at home ownership. Pure genius.

EDUCATION

Obama has called for something that irks teachers’ unions. He says educators should be rewarded based on performance as long as test scores aren’t the sole measure. Clinton says she would support merit pay, as long as it was based on school-wide performance and not the individual teacher.

At the college level, both want to provide more tuition relief through tax credits — up to $3,500 for Clinton and $4,000 for Obama. Obama also would require something Clinton does not. Students would have to perform 100 hours of community service to qualify each year.

Total crap. Teachers make good money already, all their whining about long hours aside. No other job I know of provides 4 months of vacation per year. I’m all for merit pay, but it needs to be linked to some objective measure, like test scores. Hillary’s plan would only serve to punish teachers who choose to work in “disadvantaged” schools. Group-think at its worst.

RETIREMENT

Both candidates say they would help low- and middle-income workers set up personal retirement accounts and provide government matches for the first $1,000 saved annually. But they would go about it differently.

Clinton would match 100 percent for families earning $60,000 or less, with smaller breaks for those earning up to $100,000. Obama would match 50 percent of the first $1,000 for families making less than $75,000.

A chicken in every pot! And just where does the money come from for all these “matching” schemes? Oh that’s right, from other people. Can anyone say “Income Redistribution”?

On Social Security, Clinton has refused to say publicly what options she would consider to keep the system afloat long term. Obama has said the best choice is to raise Social Security taxes on people earning more than $200,000.

How about fiscal responsibility across the board? No, too much work. Let’s just redistribute the wealth.

FOREIGN POLICY

The debate over whether the president should directly negotiate with rogue leaders has been one of the most prominent issue differences in the campaign. Obama says he would meet with heads of state in places like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Clinton says those meetings could be used for propaganda and her first response will be outreach through other diplomatic channels.

Hmmm. An actual difference in their platforms. Hillary sound suspiciously “conservative” on this one.

IMMIGRATION

Another much-discussed division: whether to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Obama says yes, for safety reasons. Clinton says no.

So Obama wants to reward illegal immigrants with a driver’s license, while Hillary pretends to be a conservative once again.

TAXES

Both candidates would repeal Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans to pay for their programs. Obama also has a plan for across-the-board tax cuts for most workers. Clinton doesn’t support Obama’s plan because of it $80 billion cost and because it would apply to families with significant incomes. Obama’s campaign says it would begin a phase-out for households that earn around $150,000.

More income redistribution. If Hillary felt so bad about the “rich” not paying enough taxes, why doesn’t she offer to kick in more of that $109,000,000 that she and Bill earned the last 7 years? As populist liberals, there is nothing stopping them from voluntarily giving while not pressing a gun to the side of the head of the rest of us.

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

you go, Mara!!!

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, by citing these people, “In an interview, Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow” you immediately discredit yourself.

You, too, kimberly. You’ve done a lot of squawking on the blog over the past few years about how voters need to be informed, etc. As such, I would expect you, of all people, to be able to offer something other than ad hominem attacks. You’ve complained about people calling Hillary names, like Shrillary, yet came up with this gem last week:

The important thing is to keep McKillEmAll and his short fuse out of the WH. It will be hard to have faith in the goodness or intelligence of America (I have a couple drops left) if that guy becomes our next finger on the button of global destruction.

How about some intelligent debate this week?

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

btw, perro…since you’re setting yourself up as the grammar/spelling monitor this week - I’m surprised you let Andrea get away with “she wants anchor folks to put down their sheath of notes…”. As we all know, a “sheath” is something that cacoons something else, like a knife or wire, etc. What Andrea meant was “sheaf of notes”)

Good eye on that one, Mara. Thanks for the shout. It’s always refreshing to hear from you, primarily because you actually have something to say, differently from the the whining sideline snipers who basically have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

Actually, I have no desire to be the grammar police on W2W. I realize that most of us are typing informally, and shouldn’t be held to any high grammatical standards. Andrea, however, is being paid to write a column, and needs to do better.

The truth is, I don’t like one-sided fights in which I win all the time. I love when someone can show me up, or at least make me think. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy watching Hannity and Colmes: Allan Colmes does a good job rebutting Sean Hannity and in interviewing guests of both political stripes. Here on W2W, I most enjoy you, NetB, and USinUK, because you guys can defend your positions and show me up. I believe kimberly is smart enough to offer real debate as well, but seems to prefer style over substance.

By Mara

April 28, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

helleeeewwww UusK! (get it? “u.s.” in the “U”-“K”?! hahahaha!!)

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

El P -

Andrea, however, is being paid to write a column, and needs to do better.

I agree … this week, she and her editors let the side down. Sloppy - that’s the only word for it.

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

JokesOn—I hope you check in this week to continue the debate about the best way to administer health care. You claimed last Monday that my scheme in which consumers were placed back in control of their own health care choices was a fantasy, and didn’t exist in the real world. Apparently you missed the ajc article on the op-ed page the very same day in which an MD explained why he no longer accepts insurance, and instead charges cash for his visits. His opinion, shared by me, is that such a model not only puts consumerism back into health care, but also is ultimately less expensive due to the elimination of the middle man (i.e either the insurance company or the government).

BTW, McCain’s position on health care is that we need an expansion of Medical Savings Accounts—i.e. pre-tax dollars which are held in an account so that health care consumers can choose their own doctors and their own services. IMO, because people allow their insurance companies to choose their doctors, then they let the doctors make all the decisions as to what tests need to be run, what treatments rendered, etc., people have stopped thinking on their own as to what is best for themselves. I’ve always retained control of my own health care, even as a teenager, and have benefited from it.

The other problem which drives up health care costs is something known as “defensive medicine”, which means doctors ordering unnecessary test after unnecessary test because they fear a malpractice suit from some sheister lawyer. Every estimate I’ve seen suggests that around 70% of all medical tests ordered are unnecessary. In a nutshell, that’s why I don’t support “nationalized health care”, but instead support “consumerized health care”.

By Lyrazel

April 28, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

So if everything is going from bad to worse why are there more millionaires in the US today than 5 years ago? No, not everyone invests in missile defense contract stocks—why some of these folks are just average Joans’ who instead of spending on frivolous stuff managed to save, invest and some new millionaires had ideas then with hard work created not found their pot of gold. Few of the new millionaires made their fortunes from inheritance—and most work forty to fifty hour weeks, but by cutting frivolous expenses, staying in the same home for 20 years, driving an economy car they have been watching their equity increase even if the TV show screams to redo the bathroom—or to use the equity in their house to get a loan for a new car—they don’t follow trends. There have been many voices advising caution that were not heard during the USA’s credit boom now bust situation. These were the people who paid off their debts, bought in cash, never had fancy spa weekends, never wore designer shoes but still avoided shopping at WalMart because they felt cheap goods from other countries meant paying a price beyond low prices. They were not fooled by trends, trend setters and television hype. Could it be that they have chosen wealth instead of acquiring high-status material possessions?

One common thread about all these new millionaires is how much they value education—their own and their children and grandchildren. They are willing to spend to give their children a better than average education even if they were just public school graduates—to them education is a priority. Sadly that is not common in American families.

While I do agree unemployment is going up, inflation is rising prices are skyrocketing I feel the bulk of America’s economic problems stem from borrowing—we borrowed off our equity—our country borrowed for a war—and why no one had the notion that loans would need to be paid back—is a mystery to me.

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Serious question for all you Democrats on board who accuse Republicans of “marching in lockstep” and getting all their opinions from Rush Limbaugh: When’s the last time any of you voted for even one Republican???? I’ll bet my bottom dollar that kimberly, Archie, and probably CopyLeft all vote a straight party ticket every single election. Although I’m a hard core conservative, I always split my votes, based upon who I think will do the best job.

cacoons

And since I’m not the grammar police, Mara, I’ll let you slide on that one. ; > } BTW, it is such a pleasure to hear from you.

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Mara -

helleeeewwww UusK! (get it? “u.s.” in the “U”-“K”?! hahahaha!!)

and I’m digging the accent, too!! VERY posh!

By Truth

April 28, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Didn’t we discuss this a week or two ago?

Are they reading the blog to get ideas for the blog?

Here’s an idea: Clean up the damn spam.

By Archie

April 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Shanti seems to be a dittohead at this point. I mean with gas prices,foreclosures, and the unemployment rate going up ever so slightly why would she think the media is driving the economy into a tree. Reality is what it is and the media is not irresponsible in reporting the news as it is. Just a hint but if gas prices were forced down to say $2/gallon you would see the economy stimulated. My one word answer to the topic question is no and I believe Andrea wins this debate hands down.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

So far at 10:30AM on Monday, there has been 88,109 characters of spam.

There has been 24,993 characters written by bloggers.

Over three to one.

Good job AJC.

So what were your qualifications to get that job?

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Truthy!!

Didn’t we discuss this a week or two ago? Are they reading the blog to get ideas for the blog?

hey … we’re trend-setters … what can we say??!!

actually, I hope they were reading the listserv and responding to the people saying they wanted to talk about something more substantive.

Here’s an idea: Clean up the damn spam.

hear hear!!! I second that emotion - figure out what the ding-dang problem with the technology is that allows people to hack in here in the first place!!!

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Few of the new millionaires made their fortunes from inheritance—and most work forty to fifty hour weeks, but by cutting frivolous expenses, staying in the same home for 20 years, driving an economy car they have been watching their equity increase even if the TV show screams to redo the bathroom—or to use the equity in their house to get a loan for a new car—they don’t follow trends. There have been many voices advising caution that were not heard during the USA’s credit boom now bust situation. These were the people who paid off their debts, bought in cash, never had fancy spa weekends, never wore designer shoes but still avoided shopping at WalMart because they felt cheap goods from other countries meant paying a price beyond low prices. They were not fooled by trends, trend setters and television hype. Could it be that they have chosen wealth instead of acquiring high-status material possessions?

You’re singing my song, Lyrazel. I even agree with your statement about WalMart. In my experience, it always makes the most sense to buy high-quality items, which WalMart rarely stocks. I only shop at the big W for disposable items, which I only need to use once or twice.

Unfortunately, I’m no longer wealthy after taking 2 1/2 years off from work. That, along with my weakness for lavishing women with fancy dinners, trips, and nice presents has put me back in the poor house where I originally started. Can anyone advance me a loan??

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

El P -

When’s the last time any of you voted for even one Republican????

Jodi Rell (CT Gov) - she rocks the house. Otherwise, too danged many of them pander to the religious right - especially on issues regarding sex ed/contraception/abortion and I just can’t support them. They may be great people and would do a good job in everything else, but if they’re going to start telling my doctor what ‘scripts I can take, then I just. can’t. vote. for. them.

By Archie

April 28, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

It has been several years since I voted for a republican and by several years I mean more than 7. I voted for a republican superintendent of education here in South Carolina and a republican state treasurer here in South Carolina. The superintendent that I voted for was a woman and I only bring that up to show that I have been used to voting for women for a long time. I simply do not share the republican philosophy and I look at the office that I’m voting on and evaluate the candidates based on my philosophy. The woman that I voted for believed in and practiced diversity in hiring whereas the democratic incumbent had practiced a clear pattern of discrimination and he was doing absolutely nothing in office. It was the same way with the secretary of state office and the treasurer’s office in that you had democrats older than dirt doing nothing. Keep in mind that some state offices are non-partisan.

By kimberly

April 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Why would I waste my breath trying to convince el mutt-o of anything? Frankly, I don’t want your kind on my “side.” Just being honest.

No, no, no. I put it upon the defenders of all things Republican (and maligners of all things Democrat) to change MY mind with logical, rational explanations about why all things “rightie” are good, and why I’ve been so horribly, terribly wrong all about everything all these years. (Especially since what I said about this stupid war has all been validated by generals and Republican senators since I was so horribly “wrong,” “negative,” and “un-American” to say those things.) I’ve long since given up on your kind completely, and have not one whit of faith or hope that there’s even a glimmer of a chance of redemption for any of you.

I have my value system; you have your own. But if you are compelled to enlighten me, knock yourself out. Thus far, I’m unimpressed.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Archie

Reality is what it is and the media is not irresponsible in reporting the news as it is.

FOX News reports the news as it is. Of course they report the stories they choose which are usually anti-democrat. The big three and CNN do the same against Republicans.

News stations rarely are caught lying. They do report on what they choose and most of the media has been reporting that we are in a recession for months even though we are still growing our economy every quarter. There are some that choose to redefine the term “recession” in order to promote that Republicans have ridden the economy into the ground.

Gas prices are driving the economy right now. Those would be the same gas prices that Nancy Pelosy promised that if the Democrats regained control of Congress would be lowered. But (say it ain’t so) the Democrats have done nothing to lower prices. They have raised taxes on the oil companies which (say it ain’t so again) they will pass the paying of every dime on to us.

Now what I have written is dead-on truth. Pelosy promised it, but it was just a lie so the dims could take over Congress.

But (say it ain’t so, yet again) this story is not discussed, EVER by the Big Three or CNN.

So isn’t the media being irresponsible for not telling that story?

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

Just a hint but if gas prices were forced down to say $2/gallon you would see the economy stimulated.

Glad to hear from you, Archie. Now, please explain to me how you would go about forcing gas prices back to $2 per gallon. Obama has also given some lip service to lowering gas prices as well, but—big surprise—he hasn’t offered one specific policy as to how he’s going to do it. We can’t stop supply and demand forces from working. The Chinese, and even the Russians, are buying more and more gas, which raises demand. At the same time, Venezuela and the OPEC nations are holding tight on keeping production relatively low, thereby reducing supply. McCain, on the other hand, proposes to suspend gas taxes, whcih should help a little. The ultimate solution, until hydrogen fusion becomes economically viable, is for all of us to conserve. A 10% reduction in demand would do the most to lower prices.

BTW, Archie, when is the last time you voted for a Republican at any level of government?? Or, are you a straight party voter??

By Truth

April 28, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

USinUK

The AJC knows that the spam will be here every morning. But they have a filter that filters out bad words so actually opening up the site and cleaning it up would actually take an effort.

Not bloody likely!!

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

I’ve long since given up on your kind completely, and have not one whit of faith or hope that there’s even a glimmer of a chance of redemption for any of you.

Well, your first problem is lumping together all conservatives. Not every conservative is a religious whacko like chuck. No every conservative spends their time watching “Patton” and smoking Marlboros either. In fact, some of us are hard-core rockers. Just this weekend, I partied hard with Michael Allman, who is Greg Allman’s son. After we got around to comparing tattoos, he insisted on taking a picture of my Jerry Garcia tat to put on his myspace website. Very cool guy.

I have my value system; you have your own. But if you are compelled to enlighten me, knock yourself out. Thus far, I’m unimpressed.

The bottom line is that you are more closed minded than the worst follower of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. You wouldn’t acknowledge a good conservative idea if it bit you on the butt. Hopefully you will raise your child to make better choices about romance than you have.

By Mara

April 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

UsinUk - Otherwise, too danged many of them pander to the religious right - especially on issues regarding sex ed/contraception/abortion and I just can’t support them.

Bravo! Well said.

Perro - When’s the last time any of you voted for even one Republican????

Last Republican I voted for was…Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. (He’s still in the race, btw, so if in the general election you decide you can’t stomach McCain after all, drop a vote for Dr. Paul.)

and thanks for letting me slide on the cocoon issue ;^)

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

I simply do not share the republican philosophy and I look at the office that I’m voting on and evaluate the candidates based on my philosophy. The woman that I voted for believed in and practiced diversity in hiring whereas the democratic incumbent had practiced a clear pattern of discrimination and he was doing absolutely nothing in office. It was the same way with the secretary of state office and the treasurer’s office in that you had democrats older than dirt doing nothing. Keep in mind that some state offices are non-partisan

Thanks for the response, Archie.

Otherwise, too danged many of them pander to the religious right - especially on issues regarding sex ed/contraception/abortion and I just can’t support them. They may be great people and would do a good job in everything else, but if they’re going to start telling my doctor what ‘scripts I can take, then I just. can’t. vote. for. them.

I’m with you on the pandering to the religious wackos, USinUK. Nothing makes me more sick about the Republican Party than that. The bottom line is that fascists like chuck aren’t really conservative because they want to force their personal views on others using the force of the government to back them up, which is the antithesis of the truly conservative value of letting people live their lives as they choose.

On the Democratic side, I get tired of all the racial pandering/racial classification. Just last week Bill Clinton put his foot in his mouth once again by injecting race into the Democratic primary contest. Unfortunately, he forgot to hang up his cell phone after he thought the interview was over and showed his true colors. Pretty bad. If Hillary was smart, she would put a muzzle on him.

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Truth -

But they have a filter that filters out bad words so actually opening up the site and cleaning it up would actually take an effort.

why is THIS the only AJC forum with problems? Not to mention, I’ve never seen copious amounts of spam like this on other newspaper message boards.

in the meantime, no time for movies this weekend - was too danged busy around the house (I love the whole Spring-get-the-house-organized routine!!) … did you see anything worthwhile?

By Lyrazel

April 28, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Do you feel that you need a wash for agreeing with a liberal like me, El Pero?

The only way to lower gas prices nationwide is to have supply on hand purchased at less expensive cost. The US has failed to keep surplus stock of petroleum available after the burning of major supply tanks in Houston. Oil since 1970 was a cheap commodity, readily available with little competition for supply. All gas & oil drilling & exploration in the US ended because this was too expensive to make profit—hence the oil subsidy was created.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

$2.91 a gallon and the Democrats are going to fix it because the Republican Congress was so corrupt. LOL!!

Pelosi: ‘With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford Rubber Stamp Congress’

Monday, April 24, 2006

Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority’s failure to address gas prices follows Pelosi’s statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

Key Facts on the Majority’s Failure to Address Gas Prices:

President Bush, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress wrote and passed a Republican energy bill that President Bush’s own Energy Department said would raise gas prices on American consumers. Big oil and gas companies wrote the Republican energy bill, and the American people paid the price.

The Majority rejected imposing tough penalties on price gouging companies three times in the past year, since that time, gas prices increased by another 11 cents a gallon.

Speaker Hastert and the Majority have been blocking action on Congressman Stupak’s Federal Response to Energy Emergencies Act (H.R. 3936) since last September, which would protect American consumers from high gas prices by empowering the FTC and the DOJ to investigate and prosecute oil companies engaged in price gouging at each stage of the energy production and distribution chain and outlaws market manipulation.

By Copyleft

April 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

The bottom line is that you have nothing to say.

Neither do you, Dog… you just use a LOT more words to say it! (snicker)

By kimberly

April 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

The bottom line is that I don’t care what you think. Your ramblings have not and do not appeal to my value system. That I have no interest in feeding the troll who waits for a morsel to shred for an audience as evidence of his own presumed superiority does not mean I’ve “lumped together all conservatives.” On the contrary, I am lucid enough to make distinctions between different types of “conservatives” (i.e., social and fiscal, actual and confessed, thinkers and fanatics, etc.)

Freeing myself from the idea that I can get people of differing value systems to agree with me is liberating indeed. There are people with whom I share common values; it is with those that I will contribute and collaborate my efforts for change and a better America. Thanks.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

USinUK

did you see anything worthwhile?

I saw my editing system all weekend. This is nuts. I am afraid to turn down work, but it keeps coming.

My kitten (which is now almost full grown) almost took my friend’s nose off. He bled like crazy. Don’t mess with the kitty!

It is raining here and has been since Sat. night. We need the rain but it screwed up the Inman Park festival (which I couldn’t attend anyway)

I am looking at buying another house. The deals are incredible right now.

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Last Republican I voted for was…Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.

I thought about you, Mara, while driving through the desert on I-15 on my way from Las Vegas to Claremont, California last week. Way out in the middle of nowhere, somewhere near Barstow, CA was a HUGE display supporting Ron Paul. The central theme was the phrase “The Ron Paul Revolution”, with the letters of “Revolution” printed backwards. By doing that, they drew attention to the word “Love” spelled backwards within “Revolution”. Kind of warmed my grinch-like heart.

Actually, I fully support Ron Paul and his libertarian position. I didn’t vote for him simply because I didn’t think he had any realistic chance of winning. I did, however, vote for Ross Perot twice back in the 1990s. I truly believe that a viable third party would be the best thing to happen to our country politically. It’s the only way we’ll get these folks to pay any attention to us.

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

El P -

which is the antithesis of the truly conservative value of letting people live their lives as they choose

Working in finance as I do, I have a load of GOP friends (and even a couple of family members) - to a person, they’re all disgusted that the religious right has taken over your party on everything from choice to equal rights for gays. It’s a scary thing when Barry Goldwater looks like a liberal in comparison to the rest of your party.

Just last week Bill Clinton put his foot in his mouth once again by injecting race into the Democratic primary contest. Unfortunately, he forgot to hang up his cell phone after he thought the interview was over and showed his true colors. Pretty bad.

what happened?? missed that story.

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Do you feel that you need a wash for agreeing with a liberal like me, El Pero?

Not at all , Lyrazel. I’ve always found your posts to be of the highest quality, full of good ideas and well-supported arguments. So you know, I only use the term “liberal” to poke at the non-thinking members of the left who like to put all conservatives in one box, their vociferous protests to the contrary aside. Prime example:

Freeing myself from the idea that I can get people of differing value systems to agree with me is liberating indeed. There are people with whom I share common values; it is with those that I will contribute and collaborate my efforts for change and a better America. Thanks.

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Truth -

wow - you just go!!

good luck in finding a new pad - deals to be had, yes, but banks have made the lending harder to get to. good luck!!!

and way to go on business being good!!

By HST

April 28, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

“We were somewhere near Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold.”

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

We need the rain but it screwed up the Inman Park festival (which I couldn’t attend anyway)

Good morning, New Truth. I’m giving you that moniker due to your efforts to cut back on the political categorizations. I don’t want you to be like the closed-minded far left wingers who put every conservative in the same box.

I missed the Inman Park Fest also due to being in a seminar all weekend. My buddy, Col. Bruce Hampton performed, as did my friends in Stop, Drop, and Roll. Fortunately, local music is still alive and well, although the national music scene pretty much sucks, IMO.

For any fans of Shinedown on board, they are planning on releasing their new CD in June. The lead singer Brent and his GF just had a baby, so he’s been taking his sweet time editing the new songs. More locally, the toxicology reports for Sean Costello haven’t been released yet, but don’t be surprised if the cause of death involves “Coca-Cola”.

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Working in finance as I do, I have a load of GOP friends (and even a couple of family members) - to a person, they’re all disgusted that the religious right has taken over your party on everything from choice to equal rights for gays. It’s a scary thing when Barry Goldwater looks like a liberal in comparison to the rest of your party.

Aha—Now I know why you know what an actuary is! And now I know why you are such a smart cookie yourself. I get really hot for smart girls like you and Mara. Ladies who build their political positions on fact, not emotionality.

what happened?? missed that story.

In a phone interview, Bill tried to make the case that the only reason Obama won the SC primary was because of race. He compared Obama’s win to that of Jesse Jackson back in 1988. WHat is ridiculous about that argument, of course, is that Obama also won several nearly all-white states like Nebraska as well. Then, after Bill thought the interview was over, he said something to the effect “Do you think I’m going to get nailed again for this sh-it?” Hillary needs to send him on a long vacation if she hopes to win the nomination. Ditto for Obama and Rev. Wright. Wright just can’t keep his mouth shut, and is hurting Obama big-time.

BTW, the Republican Party isn’t my party. I fully support gay rights, and letting people keep their private lives private. Especially in the area of religious freedom. I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic GOD, and don’t believe in “prayer”, so get sick to my stomach at A-hos like chuck who basically want to codify religion into law through forced public prayer, laws against abortion, etc. That doesn’t mean I dont’ have strong opinions about what is right in life, just that I have respect for differences of opinion.

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

We were somewhere near Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold.”

Ha Ha—Fear and loathing in Las Vegas, for sure!!!!

I think the book which ruined me the most has to be Tom Wolfe’s “Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test”. If that isn’t one long advertisement for recreational drug use, nothing is.

Of course, I’m a straight arrow these days. Not even tempted anymore.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

El Perro

I haven’t really changed. I just haven’t had a reason. LOL!!

But to be honest, I just don’t have the time. Flaming takes a lot of work and while money doesn’t mean much to me, I owe people money and it means a lot to them. I am working like crazy.

I think the whole blog is doing much better in that regard, that is until I noticed that the very first post this morning was a personal attack toward you. But it wasn’t anything to get upset about.

This is not a good subject for Democrats. I’m sure you saw Nancy Pelosy’s press release where she clearly says that the reason for the high gas prices of two years ago was because of a corrupt Republican Congress.

So …

What’s the reason now, Nancy?

No response to that press release so far. And I’m not holding my breath.

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

El P -

BTW, the Republican Party isn’t my party. I fully support gay rights, and letting people keep their private lives private. Especially in the area of religious freedom. I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic GOD, and don’t believe in “prayer”, so get sick to my stomach at A-hos like chuck who basically want to codify religion into law through forced public prayer, laws against abortion, etc. That doesn’t mean I dont’ have strong opinions about what is right in life, just that I have respect for differences of opinion.

testify, my friend!! and interesting concept of an anthroporphic God - we created him in our image and then made him create us in his … hrmmmmm … (while I do believe in God, I sure as shooting don’t believe in religion)

*Then, after Bill thought the interview was over, he said something to the effect “Do you think I’m going to get nailed again for this sh-it?” *

I’m not quite getting the context here - is he saying that he’s afraid he’s going to be caught out in a stretching of the truth??

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Well, gotta run and try to be productive today. Enjoyed the conversations with the intelligent posters who actually have something to say, unlike CoplyLeft who has resigned himself to sideline sniping.

BTW—doesn’t ANYONE have any political opinions about both Hillary’s and Obama’s “solutions” of raising taxes and redistributing the wealth in this country. Sounds like socialism to me, which is a proven loser. I think we all need to get past all the class warfare and let the capital providers do their jobs of providing capital so that small-time entrepreneurs like myself can scratch out a living and provide jobs for our employees. While I believe most of you here work for big corporations or the government, a full 80% of jobs in the US are still categorized as being “small business” jobs.

Can you back me on that one, Lyrazel??

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

testify, my friend!! and interesting concept of an anthroporphic God - we created him in our image and then made him create us in his … hrmmmmm … (while I do believe in God, I sure as shooting don’t believe in religion)

My concept of God is duly rooted on both the Bible and in Science, USinUK. In the Bible, it clearly states that God is an omniscient, omnipresent spirit. A spirit, by definition, is non-corporal. As such, it is beyond me why so many “religious” people speak of God as being some sort of grandfather-in-the-sky who intervenes directly into our little lives. Totally non-Biblical.

On the Science side, the words “omnipresent” and “omniscient” suggest to me that GOD is the aggregate of nuclear and other forces which imbues the Universe with an undeniable intelligence. That is why I think that “Evolutionists/Big Bangers” are totally full of crap. No number of “random” processes can create intelligence.

In the end, our ability to think is limited by our binary thought processes and reliance on “rules”. In the 1930s, my man Kurt Godel proved via Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem that no set of “rules” is ever complete, or consistent. Which is why Bertrand Russell failed in his attempt to codify all of mathematics in his seminal work Principia Mathematica, and also why Einstein failed to “discover” a Unified Field Theorem which linked together the “strong nuclear forces”, the “weak nuclear forces”, and “gravitational forces”. Humble scientists and religious people recognize these limitations, while arrogant fools like Brian Curtis and chuck think you can put it all in a bottle.

By El Perro

April 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Continuing, USinUK…Jesus basically said the same thing that Kurt Godel did, only nearly 200 years earlier when he pointed out that Mosaic Law is inadequate to build a faith—or a life— around. What is important isn’t the RULES, but the SPIRIT. In the end, it’s all about love.

As for Bill Clinton, I think he was concerned that he would once again be criticized for his essentially racist views. Although he rode the “black vote” to victory in 1992 and 1996, he’s p** that Hillary doesn’t automatically have the “black vote” in her back pocket.

Have a great day… ; > }

By USinUK

April 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

see you guys manananana … heading home!

By Cheerleader

April 28, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

Gimme a “S” Gimme an “N” Gimme an “I” Gimme a “D” Gimme a “E” Gimme a “L” Gimme an “I” Gimme a “N” Gimme an “E”

Gimme a “S” Gimme an “N” Gimme an “I” Gimme a “P” Gimme an “E” Gimme a “R” Gimme a “S”

Go Snideline Snipers

By Andy

April 28, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Mara—-I don’t usually jump on here, but you’re absolutely right—-I meant sheaf of papers. Somehow that got through our many filters…very sloppy of me. Apologies all around…

Speaking of filters: Shaunti and I hate the spam too, and we’re working on it. The AJC is understaffed for this kind of thing,and Diane used to clear it out sometimes herself. (She was on staff at the paper).

Topics: We’re bound to sometimes talk about issues you guys have already discussed—-the usual stuff that’s in the air. (We plan about 10 days out or so). If you want to know more about why we pick the topics we do, or have suggestions, please e-mail me directly and we’ll talk about it. Thanks all! andy sarvady

By JokesOn

April 28, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

JokesOn—I hope you check in this week to continue the debate about the best way to administer health care. You claimed last Monday that my scheme in which consumers were placed back in control of their own health care choices was a fantasy, and didn’t exist in the real world. Apparently you missed the ajc article on the op-ed page the very same day in which an MD explained why he no longer accepts insurance, and instead charges cash for his visits. His opinion, shared by me, is that such a model not only puts consumerism back into health care, but also is ultimately less expensive due to the elimination of the middle man (i.e either the insurance company or the government).

What you explain might very well be better than this system, but that does not make it the best system or better than a universal health care system.

This is a single case that is specific, yet effects 300k people: Your plan also does not address the 300k people that are un-insurable because of having an open heart surgery. The govmt program in place that does cover these 300k which are self employed costs $23k a year after copays, $18k without.

I personally do not think the systems either candidate are proposing goes far enough based on what I have read about other universal systems. I still would vote yes on either though because I would see them as a work in progress towards the greater, all-inclusive, programs. And yes, in these programs you can choose any doctor with little to no waiting time and no gatekeepers. That sounds more like the govmt guaranteeing that I get to choose what service and how soon to opt for it, not others making my choices.

I have heavy deadlines today but will part with the words of Switzerland’s/Germany’s/Taiwan’s leaders statement (each of them said it, but in different ways):

How can a government feel education is a right, but not health care? Both are equally and fundamentally important to the country’s needs as well the individual’s. They are forever tied together, for if you look at the wealth/income of people, it is proportional to their risk of illness.

By chuck

April 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

doggie, you said:

Every estimate I’ve seen suggests that around 70% of all medical tests ordered are unnecessary. In a nutshell, that’s why I don’t support “nationalized health care”, but instead support “consumerized health care”.

Not that I agree that healthcare should be nationalized, but wouldn’t this be an argument in favor of nationalization? If the government ran healthcare there would be no need for “defensive medicine” as you called it OR malpractice insurance. Since it would be a single payer system with some sort of bureauacracy, it stands to reason that they would handle complaints against doctors as well as sanction, thus eliminating the need for malpractice insurance, etc.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

Andy

Thanks for taking care of the spam today. It is very frustrating to come here and the vast majority of the blog is dominated by these worthless spammers.

I think the frustrating thing is that the spam appears every night. Never misses. I don’t know how complicated it is to remove the spam, but if it is simple to do, until the technology is made better. why isn’t it just a part of someone’s job? Come to work, open up W2W, delete the spam, move on to the rest of the day. Spammers wouldn’t be so ready to post here if their nightly garbage wsa deleted every morning before anyone could see it. As it is: if we are lucky, it might get cleaned up twice a week. If the spammers get four or five days of face time with each post, why wouldn’t they direct their bots to post all this crap?

As USinUk stated, we don’t mind you taking our subjects at all. I think this blog tends to gravitate toward more important topics than are usually presented as the subject.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

USinUk

What’s the deal with medical malpractice in the UK? Can a patient sue the doctor over there?

By chuck

April 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

TRUTH, can you tell me how in the world this “PLAN” would have lowered fuel prices? When IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES has lifting a tax BREAK, ever lowered prices to consumers? This plan would have caused prices to increase faster and greater than they did.

There are ONLY 3 THINGS congress could do to lower gas prices. First, they could remove ALL TAXES on gas to consumers and taxes of all kinds on oil companies. OR, they could put rationing into place. Rationing would force consumers to reduce demand and thereby drop prices. Finally, they could ignore Florida and California and open up drilling along the coast in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR, and make it easier to build and operate refineries, nuclear power plants and clean coal technology.

The first 2 would lower prices immediately and for the short term. The latter would put into place a common sense energy plan that would lower fuel costs for DECADES. Gutless politicians won’t do anything though.

By Bruno

April 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

Howdy again guys—Lots of interesting points on the blog which I’d like to address. In light of all of the polite, respectful responses, I’ve “changed personalities” in order to respond in a more civil manner as well.

First of all, to Andrea: Thank you for your interest in cleaning up the pornographic spam. I generally just ignore it, but I can see how it would be extremely offensive to the women posters, especially on a site entitled “Woman to Woman”.

As for my criticisms regarding the quality of your columns, please understand that you are following Diane Glass, who truly was an outstanding writer, both creatively and factually. The AJC was lucky to have her for so many years. To a person, we all miss her dearly, even those of us who rarely agreed with her point of view. If I was hard on you yesterday and today, I apologize. No one will ever fill Diane’s shoes.

By chuck

April 28, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Working in finance as I do, I have a load of GOP friends (and even a couple of family members) - to a person, they’re all disgusted that the religious right has taken over your party on everything from choice to equal rights for gays. It’s a scary thing when Barry Goldwater looks like a liberal in comparison to the rest of your party.

Let me ask you a question uusk…How many years did the Republicans control congress BEFORE that occurred? NONE. They can be as disgusted as they like. IF however, they want us to LEAVE, they’ll never win another election. It’s a relatively strong coalition because most of us as “Social Conservatives” are also FISCAL conservatives. It’s called the Reagan Revolution. Deal with it, because if we ever do get disgusted enough with the Republican party and leave, they can prepare to be permanent back benchers.

By Bruno

April 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Secondly, to JokesOn:

What you explain might very well be better than this system, but that does not make it the best system or better than a universal health care system.

This is a single case that is specific, yet effects 300k people: Your plan also does not address the 300k people that are un-insurable because of having an open heart surgery. The govmt program in place that does cover these 300k which are self employed costs $23k a year after copays, $18k without.

My concern about universal health care is that it ultimately in anti-consumer, and further removes people from the BEST health care system, which is one based on knowledgeable consumers making their own decisions, utilizing the doctor as a RESOURCE of knowledge, and not as the final decision-maker. I can’t tell you how many times I cringed while in practice when someone came to me and said “The doctor PUT me on such and such a medication.” No doctor ever PUT me on ANYTHING. At worst, I DECIDED to take a certain medication based upon a discussion with the MD. World of difference between the two scenarios.

As for your second point, I agree that it is problematic how to deal with folks who have chronic health problems, often through no fault of their own. For those folks, I would recommend either private charity to pick up the slack, or at worst a government program to take care of them if they can’t afford coverage themselves.

The biggest problem with universal coverage is that if something is free, then people will opt for the most expensive tests and the most expensive treatments, in which case rationing—and the subsequent loss of control of your own health care—will have to take place.

At any rate, let’s continue the debate when you have time. If you have a chance, please reference a link so that I can see the comparisons of our system with the “7 best systems” so that I can critique the article.

By Bruno

April 28, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Next, chuck. I’ll make you a deal, based upon your (somewhat) respectful response. I’ll cut out the personal attacks if you do. The bottom line is that our visions of a conservative world based on conservative values aren’t that far apart. Our biggest difference is in how to implement it. I oppose any laws which limit freedom of choice, however repulsive those choices may be to you and me. I especially abhor women sleeping around, then using abortion as a de facto form of birth control. However, I would NEVER propose making abortion illegal, or even unavailable. Similarly, while I think attaining spiritual values is the way to go, I can’t support any governmental support for school prayer, even prayers made over PA systems at sporting events due to the non-establishment clause placed in our Constitution.

On a personal front, I’d like to make a confession to you. Most of my animosity toward you is based upon your criticisms of kimberly. As many times as she has shunned me, I still have a soft spot in my heart for her. When the chips were really down for me last year, and I didn’t want to live any longer, she gave me a glimmer of hope to hang in there. For that, I will always be indebted to her. She can say any nasty thing about me she wants, I will always cherish her.

By Bruno

April 28, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

Not that I agree that healthcare should be nationalized, but wouldn’t this be an argument in favor of nationalization? If the government ran healthcare there would be no need for “defensive medicine” as you called it OR malpractice insurance. Since it would be a single payer system with some sort of bureauacracy, it stands to reason that they would handle complaints against doctors as well as sanction, thus eliminating the need for malpractice insurance, etc.

As for your specific comment regarding health care, any system would still have to include malpractice. Otherwise, the quality of care would suffer. The biggest change I would like to see is for malpractice claims to be handled by a TRUE jury of the doctor’s peers: i.e. other doctors who are knowledgeable about the FACTS of the case, and not some uneducated jury in Alabama who gives every plaintiff millions of dollars for every perceived slight.

The bottom line is that the most powerful lobby in the US is The Trial Lawyer’s Association. There’s no way in heck that they are going to allow true tort reform in this country. So, while the Libs cry about insurance company lobbyists, they keep forgetting who the real enemy is: the lawyers.

Thank you for your polite and thoughtful response today.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

chuck

I answered you post, but it was not posted.

I’ll just say that I only posted Pelosy’s press release with one original line at the head.

So now posts are being deleted.

Nice blog.

By Bruno

April 28, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

Finally, New Truth:

There are ONLY 3 THINGS congress could do to lower gas prices. First, they could remove ALL TAXES on gas to consumers and taxes of all kinds on oil companies. OR, they could put rationing into place. Rationing would force consumers to reduce demand and thereby drop prices. Finally, they could ignore Florida and California and open up drilling along the coast in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR, and make it easier to build and operate refineries, nuclear power plants and clean coal technology.

I agree with your analysis. For the life of me, I can’t see how Obama’s supporters think he can do anything realistic to regulate gas prices without abandoning the free enterprise system, which would be a total disaster, IMO.

Our best long-term hope is to keep working on perfecting “cold fusion”, which is the fusion of hydrogen using “heavy water” as a fuel source. There are no toxic byproducts of hydrogen fusion, unlike any other form of nuclear fission or burning of fossil fuels. Wind power and solar power sound nice, but you need massive equipment to generate a small amount of electricity. Hydro power is good, but there are only so many waterfalls in the world. One final source of energy production may rely indirectly on solar power: i.e. by capitalizing on the temperature differences in the ocean. Several types of metals can create a flow of electrons just based on temperature differentials. That would be a cool way to capture the energy of the sun, which isn’t scheduled to run out for many more eons.

By Bruno

April 28, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

On the personal front, the former GF agreed to take me back after we had a lot of fun this weekend. She’s the love of my life.

By kimberly

April 28, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

IF however, they want us to LEAVE, they’ll never win another election. … Sounds like extortion or a threat of some kind. Is it? Just curious as to how the Republican party works.

It’s a relatively strong coalition because most of us as “Social Conservatives” are also FISCAL conservatives. .. Is this supported by the actions of the borrow-and-spend Republicans who controlled Congress for so long, trumpeting the suppression of rights for Homosexual Americans while turning a blind eye to the no-bid, no-audit free-for-all war spending that’s fleeced our treasury into triple negative numbers?

It’s called the Reagan Revolution. Deal with it, … a great quip, in the tradition of the Big Quipper. Kudos!

BTW, I did not start the “us vs. them, with us or against us” mentality that has ascended and taken over our nation’s good sense in the past two decades. For years I expressed total dismay and disappointment at the demonizing of other Americans (and me for daring to express my opinion), and the pervasive unwillingness to truly come together or at least reach common middle ground.

But I heard so much “with us or against us” talk, that I finally acquiesced and accepted the reality: You can’t become “one” with one who doesn’t want to become “one” with you, whether it’s one person or 50 million. Heh… Am I wrong? Aww. If there is some logic to such a pointless pursuit, please enlighten.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Bruno

Thanks, but that was chuck. It was actually written to me because I posted the press release of Nancy Pelosy from 2006 where she was saying that the democrats could lower the price of gas.

I composed a nice post explaining this to chuck, but it never posted.

By lyrazel

April 28, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

good luck bruno.

By Truth

April 28, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Kimberly

BTW, I did not start the “us vs. them, with us or against us” mentality that has ascended and taken over our nation’s good sense in the past two decades.

That was probably caused by FOX News. I’m not being sarcastic, it probably was. But there is a reason why FOX took off. There was no voice for conservatives in the media, at least in the television media. Was that better?

I hate that TV News has become a “gotcha” industry and has figured out how to make billions by destroying US presidents. Right now, they are making billions by destroying candidates. Because of our Constitution, it ain’t going to get any better and it ain’t just FOX News doing the damage.

By Bruno

April 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

BTW, I did not start the “us vs. them, with us or against us” mentality that has ascended and taken over our nation’s good sense in the past two decades. For years I expressed total dismay and disappointment at the demonizing of other Americans (and me for daring to express my opinion), and the pervasive unwillingness to truly come together or at least reach common middle ground.

Hopefully, you’ll be a better person and rise above the us vs. them mentality once again. FYI, that phenomenon didn’t start with Bush either. It has been a staple of American politics as long as I can remember. Your man, Bill Clinton, was just as guilty of partisan politics with his open loathing of the military and rejection of core moral values which a lot of conservatives hold dear to their heart. Admittedly, B