View Full Version : Good Idea or Not: Legalizing Prostitution
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[
8]
9
10
11
12
Otoki
08-24-2009, 10:19 AM
That's what I'm saying - it needs fixing, but the systems proposed at this time WILL NOT FIX IT.
They MAY make it so everyone gets covered regardless of preexisting conditions, sure - but if the REAL issues were addressed, preexisting conditions wouldn't be a problem either. What's going to happen long-term with the systems being proposed now is the drug and medical companies are going to make ASTRONOMICAL amounts of money, and it has to come from SOMEWHERE. I do NOT mind paying to help everyone else out - until my taxes more than double in under a decade. Anyone know what the Swiss pay in taxes? France? I have a freind who owns a small business in France. His effective tax rate as the business owner is SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT. Shall I go on?
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/
If you're looking for tax rates, here you are. Interestingly, I'm not seeing 75% for taxes in France of either individuals, or corporations. How is he calculating his "effective tax rate"?
bem401
08-24-2009, 10:21 AM
We're talking about improving the overall health and condition of every citizen in this country,
See, that's the part that's debatable. Undoubtedly, your BF would be better off, but there is plenty of reason to suspect that the country as a whole will not be better off healthwise should the government take over. Why isn't Congress making the plan apply to them? I'll tell you why, because it is inferior to what they presently have. Also a government takeover would stifle creativity and medical advancements because they'd be less reward for new discoveries.
firemaiden04
08-24-2009, 11:05 AM
See, that's the part that's debatable. Undoubtedly, your BF would be better off, but there is plenty of reason to suspect that the country as a whole will not be better off healthwise should the government take over. Why isn't Congress making the plan apply to them? I'll tell you why, because it is inferior to what they presently have. Also a government takeover would stifle creativity and medical advancements because they'd be less reward for new discoveries.
How would the country as a whole be worse off with every citizen insured? Here's the statistics according to nchc.org:
Several studies estimate the number of uninsured Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, their latest data available.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) estimated that the percentage of uninsured Americans under age 65 represented 27 percent of the population. According to the MEPS data, nearly 54 million Americans under the age of 65 were uninsured in the first-half of 2007.
A recent study shows that based on the effects of the recession alone (not job loss), it is projected that nearly seven (7) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage between 2008 and 2010. 3 Urban Institute researchers estimate that if unemployment reaches 10 percent, another six (6) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage. Taking these numbers together, it is conceivable that by next year, 57 to 60 million Americans will be uninsured.
The Urban Institute estimates that under a worse case scenario, 66 million Americans will be uninsured by 2019.
Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2007 or 2008 without health coverage.
How can you say that the proposed plan will make things worse, when right now approximately a quarter of the population is uninsured? The only way things could be worse is if the percentage of uninsured rose, which studies show that it will if nothing is done. Paying a little extra money will improve the quality of life for everyone. This isn't about insuring lazy white trash with 9 kids on welfare. This is talking about insuring a quarter of the national population, people from all walks of life who deserve to be healthy. Health care shouldn't be a privilege, it should be a right. This isn't like driving a car. Everyone has the right to be healthy and protected, and right now that is not the way this country works. It should be.
bem401
08-24-2009, 01:09 PM
What will probably happen is that employers will opt to put their employees in the government plan, most likely meaning that those individuals will now have inferior coverage to what they enjoy right now. Can you really think the government is up to managing health care? Everything they touch, from Medicare to Social Security to the Post Office to the DMV to the school system I work for to the Cash for Clunkers program is mismanaged. Obama argues that we can provide coverage for all the uninsured and cut costs. That statement is laughable on its face.
Oh and you say this isn't about insuring the lazy white trash? Aren't they covered too? Health care is not a right, it is a responsibility. What about people being responsible for themselves instead of letting everyone else be responsible for them?
JayATee
08-24-2009, 01:17 PM
See, that's the part that's debatable. Undoubtedly, your BF would be better off, but there is plenty of reason to suspect that the country as a whole will not be better off healthwise should the government take over. Why isn't Congress making the plan apply to them? I'll tell you why, because it is inferior to what they presently have. Also a government takeover would stifle creativity and medical advancements because they'd be less reward for new discoveries.
Oh please, the only ppl who have this outlook are the ppl that are already taken care of and don't have to worry about it. How selfish can you be? You don't want to pay a little extra so that other ppl can have some coverage and get the care they need. That's what it comes down to.
And the idea that it will stifle creativity is also absurd. They're not going to stop making advances bc guess what, they're still going to be making money off them.
Almost Jaded
08-24-2009, 02:42 PM
I'm not seeing 75% for taxes in France of either individuals, or corporations. How is he calculating his "effective tax rate"?
Because of the way they handle small businesses there, both the personal and the corporate tax rates apply to him. His literal "taxes" come to just under 70% before the local taxes and other costs come into play.
In Sweden, many people pay between 1/3 and 3/5 of their income in taxes, before other costs.
In Canada the high end isn't SO bad - close to ours - but the MINIMUM is 15% no matter what you make.
Everyone ripped on GW for increasing teh deficit by almost two trillion dollars during his presidency.
Obama has passed that mark in under 9 months.
I could care less if we're talking a couple of hundred bucks a year in extra taxes. We're not. Look at Massachusetts.
My beef is that NONE of th legislation addresses cost control from the other side, i.e., making the drug companies especially, the food companies and AMA to a lesser degree, responsible for their actions and held to new standards and controls. The FDA needs a top-down investigation and some serious house cleaning - they're in bed with the aforementioned companies/groups in a huge way and have been for decades.
If these issues were addressed, the cost of healthcare in general under even the shitty current system could be cut DRAMATICALLY. If we're going to a single=payer system (and I don't care what he says, that's where we're headed) than it's still just as important.
bem401
08-25-2009, 06:16 AM
Oh please, the only ppl who have this outlook are the ppl that are already taken care of and don't have to worry about it. How selfish can you be? You don't want to pay a little extra so that other ppl can have some coverage and get the care they need. That's what it comes down to.
And the idea that it will stifle creativity is also absurd. They're not going to stop making advances bc guess what, they're still going to be making money off them.
Actually I don't want to pay anything out of my pocket to insure people I don't even know. There is already Medicare, Medicaid, and ER treatment for them. My taxes and/or insurance premiums pay in part for that. People need to be responsible for themselves.
The reason we have the advancements we do is because there are financial incentives to create new technology. The rewards justify the time and expense of the research that goes into the advancements. The amount of money involved is huge. Remove the incentives and there'll be less research.
jack0177057
08-25-2009, 11:54 AM
The reason we have the advancements we do is because there are financial incentives to create new technology. The rewards justify the time and expense of the research that goes into the advancements. The amount of money involved is huge. Remove the incentives and there'll be less research.
But, is it fair that Americans are paying the price of new technology with HUGE insurance premiums and medical care cost, while the same technology is transferred elsewhere and being sold at a fraction of the price? For example, is it fair that the same medication costs twice here as it does in Canada? Is it fair that bus loads of old people travel to Canada to buy their medicine because they can't afford to buy it in the U.S.
Also, the idea that private businesses do all the R&D and invest all their money in new technology is somewhat misleading. A lot of the new technology is funded by taxpayer money in public universities and research institutions (e.g., M.D. Anderson). But, the professors (whose salaries and facilities are being provided for by taxpayers) are often allowed to sell or license their discoveries (from research paid for by the taxpayers) to private businesses for their own personal gain.
Some employees, like major corporations and state governments, provide great health insurance at an affordable premium to the employee, because they have the financial resources to absorb and spread the cost. But, to smaller businesses, health care insurance is overwhelming, both the employer's share and the employee's share. I've heard of small businesses having to pay $50,000 a month for regular (not "cadillac") employee's health insurance.
JayATee
08-25-2009, 11:58 AM
Actually I don't want to pay anything out of my pocket to insure people I don't even know. There is already Medicare, Medicaid, and ER treatment for them. My taxes and/or insurance premiums pay in part for that. People need to be responsible for themselves.
Your taxes don't come out of your paycheck/pocket? Geez. I need to meet your accountant.
If you truly had any idea how the healthcare system worked you wouldn't consider medicare/medicaid adequate insurance. Do some research, you obviously need more information ::)
miabella
08-28-2009, 10:11 PM
there are doctors offering unlimited basic care for 40$/month. pay the fee, see the doc as often as you need to. no insurance forms involved. combined with 4-10$ prescriptions at walmart/costco/etc, there are already lots of cheap healthcare options for the poor and working class. we could just be focusing on expanding incentives to more doctors to provide such fixed-price services.
instead, the goal is another expensive government entitlement providing jobs for people who got degrees in something useless like public policy while not actually providing any care to poor people. poor people wait hours or days in canada-- how is that better than someone connecting them with a concierge doctor who will give them preventive care and minor surgery for 40-100/month, including children? that's cheap, doesn't cost other people's money, and government leeches don't get to benefit at all. win/win!
Almost Jaded
08-29-2009, 02:50 PM
I don't now what those programs are or who those doctors are, but that's a helluva deal. Curious to know what real medical necessities or emergencies end up costing.
Show me how One Big Ass Mistake America intends to see to it that this health care thing doesn't become simply a financial windfall for the insurance companies, drug companies, and other monetary leeches in the system and I'm on board. :shrug:
miabella
08-29-2009, 03:26 PM
it's concierge care. it started with executives and other well-off types, and is now offered to poor and working class people at cheap rates because the focus is on preventive care. so there is a lot of wellness, healthy-habit stuff, etc-- all the stuff we're told requires a big expensive government edifice to bring to poor people. there are doctors bringing it to poor people right now because keeping poor people healthy means they can keep getting their small monthly fee.
Dirty Ernie
08-29-2009, 04:06 PM
Everything I've read about concierge care is nothing like you claim. Concierge care requires patients to pay an annual premium to recieve a level of access to their physician not normally available to the typical patient. These patients typically have health insurance to begin with and these additional fees allow their Dr. to cut their patient load in order to provide the additonal free time these ultra-premium patients demand.
One such company charges $1500 per patient and the Drs. agree to limit their customers to 600 vs the average of 3,000 for a primary care physician. In return the Drs receive 2/3 of this premium or about $600,000 per year in addition to whatever profit is derived from the practice itself.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/BUG7IGJHEC1.DTL
...
"Concierge medicine is inherently discriminatory," he observed. "Poor people will be treated differently from rich people, probably worse."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/BUG7IGJHEC1.DTL#ixzz0PcGBZFTJ
This is a couple years old, so if you have any references detailing concierge care now being made available to poor people I'd like to read them.
xdamage
08-29-2009, 05:05 PM
Like DE, everything I've read about concierge care is that it is an additional fee, an agreement that gives greater access to the physician, in addition to the health care insurance you have.
There is a potential long term down side too, because most physicians that are doing this also see less patients per month, which means long term, if this system becomes popular you may have to work hard to find a doctor with free spots, and be forced to pay this fee in order to have the kind of access we have now.
Now it may be some physicians are charging the poor an additional $40 a month for promises of increased service, or it may be that some are charging $40 a month to people who he would otherwise receive nothing from (because they have no insurance), but I would be very careful about altruistic readings of the situation.
miabella
08-29-2009, 11:32 PM
there's a practice in georgia charging 500$ annually for unlimited visits, and their focus is on poorer patients.
there was a guy in new york doing the same, but he got harrassed because the insurance companies in new york claimed he was undercutting them by offering unlimited visits for 40-50/month. this is fairly common to happen to concierge/cash-only practices where they do give the unlimited visits and basic care and focus on serving poorer people. the rich-focused ones do tend to still accept insurance, and so they are not considered a threat to Big Insurance.
JayATee
08-30-2009, 02:37 AM
One Big Ass Mistake America
You know Im sick of ppl harping on him. Trust me, Im not a big suporter, but what, McCain would've been less of a mistake? Give me a break. There were no decent choices this time, or any other time for that matter. Let the man do what he's going to do and we'll get passed him the same way we got past Bush. That way we can make room for the next mistake.
Almost Jaded
08-31-2009, 12:05 AM
Okay, I had that coming. I'm just butthurt about HOW he got elected. McCain sucked too, but... Well, i see him fucking up differently, and spreading it out over a longer time period. Obama has done so much so wrong so fast, that I'm legitimately - not joking though it sounds sarcastic - wondering if there'll be anything there for the "next mistake" to make worse. :(
And I can'tr help it, I have to...
I really am starting to believe the people that say the candidates are preselected for an agenda regardless of which party wins. I believe this now because Romney made SO MUCH FUCKING SENSE IT DEFIED BELIEF, he had support from people on both sides of the isle bot in the government and on the street, he had the track record, he was the right guy at the right time for once - and the GOP not only passed on him, they then proceeded to run the worst campaign in Republican history.
Would everybody PLEASE support Romney - regardless of party - next time? He's the only person to come along in decades that MIGHT have a CHANCE of fixing something! :(
JayATee
08-31-2009, 12:49 AM
^ I have trouble believing anything is pre-selected. I see where you're coming from, though I have to say, after Bush, the republican party was left in shambles. It wasn't surprising to me the type of campaign they ran, they were left not knowing which direction was up. They need to take these 4 yrs (well 3 1/2 now) and restructure themselves. The current generation is not going to elect a group of has beens and that's consistently the face they are putting up. Romney may well be the answer, we shall see. However, regardless of what Obama does or doesnt do in the next few years, if the GOP doesn't get their shit together and they put up that moron Palin you're going to see the exact same thing happen in that election that happened in this past one.
That said, had McCain stuck to his guns and stopped flip flopping on issues he had previously been sound on I think he would have faired far better, and the election would've been much closer than it wound up being. He got caught up in hating on Obama. Instead of trying to win the American ppl he became obsessed with simply beating Obama (they're not the same thing).
Is Obama right for the country? I have my doubts, but I also don't know. He hasn't been in office even a year yet. Im willing to see where he goes. He's not stupid. Inexperienced yes, but not stupid. I agree he is doing too much too fast, but also remember how much was/is wrong. It appears that the economy may be turning around. That would be to his (and his advisors) credit. Had Bush still been in office how bad would things have gotten? They were getting right scary when he left!
Parties aren't really what I care about. I care about the person at the helm. If there's a republican I can get behind that's awesome. But Im hardly in a position to call Obama names at this point, it's only been 7 mos. Im willing to give him a chance bc at this point anything was better than where we were headed with Bush.
miabella
08-31-2009, 01:52 AM
romney's a f***ing mormon. if he runs for prez in 2012, i will be the first one knocking on doors campaigning against him. even if it's for some other repub (except palin, i hate unqualified white women who coast on their looks about as much as mormons).
RON PAUL 2012!
miabella
08-31-2009, 01:53 AM
^ I have trouble believing anything is pre-selected. I see where you're coming from, though I have to say, after Bush, the republican party was left in shambles. It wasn't surprising to me the type of campaign they ran, they were left not knowing which direction was up. They need to take these 4 yrs (well 3 1/2 now) and restructure themselves. The current generation is not going to elect a group of has beens and that's consistently the face they are putting up. Romney may well be the answer, we shall see. However, regardless of what Obama does or doesnt do in the next few years, if the GOP doesn't get their shit together and they put up that moron Palin you're going to see the exact same thing happen in that election that happened in this past one.
That said, had McCain stuck to his guns and stopped flip flopping on issues he had previously been sound on I think he would have faired far better, and the election would've been much closer than it wound up being. He got caught up in hating on Obama. Instead of trying to win the American ppl he became obsessed with simply beating Obama (they're not the same thing).
Is Obama right for the country? I have my doubts, but I also don't know. He hasn't been in office even a year yet. Im willing to see where he goes. He's not stupid. Inexperienced yes, but not stupid. I agree he is doing too much too fast, but also remember how much was/is wrong. It appears that the economy may be turning around. That would be to his (and his advisors) credit. Had Bush still been in office how bad would things have gotten? They were getting right scary when he left!
Parties aren't really what I care about. I care about the person at the helm. If there's a republican I can get behind that's awesome. But Im hardly in a position to call Obama names at this point, it's only been 7 mos. Im willing to give him a chance bc at this point anything was better than where we were headed with Bush.
bush was very lucky. 9/11 happened around this time for him, allowing him to coast to 2 terms on the national security tip. without 9/11, bush was a 1-term wonder.
obama could really use a similar situation right now...
JayATee
08-31-2009, 06:44 AM
romney's a f***ing mormon. if he runs for prez in 2012, i will be the first one knocking on doors campaigning against him. even if it's for some other repub (except palin, i hate unqualified white women who coast on their looks about as much as mormons).
RON PAUL 2012!
Nope, Ron Paul is not the better choice here.... He's just as much a moron as anyone else.
bush was very lucky. 9/11 happened around this time for him, allowing him to coast to 2 terms on the national security tip. without 9/11, bush was a 1-term wonder.
obama could really use a similar situation right now...
Sorry but Im hardly going to hope something like that happens again. You're entitled to your opinion of course but quite frankly, to say something like this I think is quite possibly the most disturbing, most insensitive thing ever.
Again, at 7 mos out... Im going to wait and see what the man does, if anything, before I pass judgement bc the fact of the matter is, he might be TRYING to do a whole lot, but he hasn't done much of anything yet.
DizzieDee
08-31-2009, 06:51 AM
I think prostitution should be legalized in the US. Decriminalizing prostitution would make it safer for the workers and the clients. Also, if it were regulated by the state or county or city std tests could be required and taxes could be collected. As far as keeping it in or out of strip clubs i would say OUT is my opinion. I am an entertainer and I work in South FL. Almost all of the clubs here are extras clubs and I am sick of it. I would love to go to work and make my money strictly dancing on stage and doing table and lap dances. I am tired of offering a lap dance and the anser being well how much is a BJ? I say stripping in strip clubs and sex in brothels.
bem401
08-31-2009, 11:25 AM
i hate unqualified white women who coast on their looks
Two observations:
1. What's being white got to do with anything?
2. Is this really the type of site where you want to criticize "women who coast on their looks"?
princessjas
08-31-2009, 05:52 PM
Two observations:
1. What's being white got to do with anything?
2. Is this really the type of site where you want to criticize "women who coast on their looks"?
We may not see eye to eye on some topics, but damn that was funny! :rotfl:
Almost Jaded
09-01-2009, 11:29 AM
^ +1 to LOLZ @ bem!
romney's a f***ing mormon. if he runs for prez in 2012, i will be the first one knocking on doors campaigning against him. even if it's for some other repub (except palin, i hate unqualified white women who coast on their looks about as much as mormons).
Wow. Just - wow. And not a good wow. A very, very shocked, amazed, and slightly scared wow.
What an amazingly short sighted, obtuse, and damned ignorant statement.
Wow.
bem401
09-01-2009, 04:01 PM
bush was very lucky. 9/11 happened around this time for him, allowing him to coast to 2 terms on the national security tip. without 9/11, bush was a 1-term wonder.
obama could really use a similar situation right now...
You know what would be the greatest thing in the world for this country right now?
Not another disaster, that's ridiculous. The best thing that could happen would be if Obama captured Osama in Afghanistan because, like the the dog who chases a car, Obama won't know what to do with him if he catches him.
Based on current administration policy, he'd be brought back here, Mirandized, and given free representation by the lawyers at Covington and Burling (where the AG is a partner). Actually his lawyers would be paid in part by the taxes of Bin Laden's victims' families. He'd get 3 hots, a cot, HBO, free health care and be afforded all the rights due an American citizen. Convicting him would be a 50/50 proposition. If he got off, he'd get to stay here, live on Park Ave, and be a guest on Larry King.
Even then, some people would still think Obama wasn't the danger to this country that he is.
firemaiden04
09-01-2009, 04:07 PM
You know what would be the greatest thing in the world for this country right now?
Not another disaster, that's ridiculous. The best thing that could happen would be if Obama captured Osama in Afghanistan because, like the the dog who chases a car, Obama won't know what to do with him if he catches him.
Based on current administration policy, he'd be brought back here, Mirandized, and given free representation by the lawyers at Covington and Burling (where the AG is a partner). Actually his lawyers would be paid in part by the taxes of Bin Laden's victims' families. He'd get 3 hots, a cot, HBO, free health care and be afforded all the rights due an American citizen. Convicting him would be a 50/50 proposition. If he got off, he'd get to stay here, live on Park Ave, and be a guest on Larry King.
Even then, some people would still think Obama wasn't the danger to this country that he is.
...what? What does that mean?
That made no sense whatsoever. And I'm getting really sick of these weird fictional scenarios people keep using when talking about Obama. Like calling him Hitler if the proposed health care reform goes through. Or this one you've come up with. You think McCain and Palin would be doing a better job? Really? Or Bush? Come on. The Republicans had their eight years in office and fucked things all to shit. The Democrats haven't even had a year and you're all freaking out. Shut up and be patient. It takes more than a year to fix eight years' worth of mistakes.
bem401
09-01-2009, 04:15 PM
...what? What does that mean?
That made no sense whatsoever. And I'm getting really sick of these weird fictional scenarios people keep using when talking about Obama. Like calling him Hitler if the proposed health care reform goes through. Or this one you've come up with. You think McCain and Palin would be doing a better job? Really? Or Bush? Come on. The Republicans had their eight years in office and fucked things all to shit. The Democrats haven't even had a year and you're all freaking out. Shut up and be patient. It takes more than a year to fix eight years' worth of mistakes.
First off, I don't care much for either McCain or Palin, ( or Bush for that matter), though I hardly think they'd be doing a worse job.
Second, I was responding to MB's wish (or in your words, "fictional secenario")for a second 9/11..
Third, all I did was apply this administration's stated policy for dealing with terrorists . Oops, we don't call them that anymore , do we? If I got the policy wrong, please show me where.
xdamage
09-01-2009, 04:25 PM
Honestly I don't know if anyone could fix the economy; my views on the economy are it was inevitable - a wave that will happen to every society, but that part aside. My friends in various countries in Europe felt Obama brought one key asset to the table. A renewed sense in the American dream. Proof that American's didn't just vote in white males and the dream that anyone could rise to the top is alive and well. Okay maybe that sounds hokey but that hope is also in many ways priceless to our image, and to how people around the world view us, and how they view their own future directions. Democracy scored a major victory (even if the economy is still messed up and probably will be for decades). I have ideas on how to fix the economy but it would involve some fairly major changes to us Americans too, a major de-emphasis on how much we pay and worship entertainers and a major emphasis on how much we pay, support, and reimburse scientists, engineers, and inventors.
bem401
09-01-2009, 04:33 PM
Honestly I don't know if anyone could fix the economy; my views on the economy are it was inevitable - a wave that will happen to every society, but that part aside. My friends in various countries in Europe felt Obama brought one key asset to the table. A renewed sense in the American dream. Proof that American's didn't just vote in white males and the dream that anyone could rise to the top is alive and well. Okay maybe that sounds hokey but that hope is also in many ways priceless to our image, and to how people around the world view us, and how they view their own future directions. Democracy scored a major victory (even if the economy is still messed up and probably will be for decades). I have ideas on how to fix the economy but it would involve some fairly major changes to us Americans too, a major de-emphasis on how much we pay and worship entertainers and a major emphasis on how much we pay, support, and reimburse scientists, engineers, and inventors.
No argument X, but the only good thing that came out of the election was the election of a non-white male, though that was only an issue because the left made it one. The unfortunate thing is more people supported him because he was black than opposed him for the same reason.
I'm still looking for one thing he has done right since taking office. And I've looked hard.
xdamage
09-01-2009, 04:52 PM
I'm still looking for one thing he has done right since taking office. And I've looked hard.
My dad was right when he taught me that it is far easier to get something right the first time than to fix it later (in regards to my rushing through the building of a model airplane as 10ish something boy). It is really hard to fix a screwed up economy after the fact. It is hard to recover from bad decisions. I don't know. It is easy to see what isn't working but so hard to know what will since economies are like deeply intertwined puzzles where you nudge one piece and 2-3 more somewhere else come undone.
Long term though, somehow we have to get our cart and horse back in order. We are screwed until we get back to the point where foundational work (e.g., education, invention, science) is seen as more glamorous and higher paying than entertainment professions (e.g, sports, acting, musician, etc.). Somehow we have to get back to the place where people want foundational work first and foremost, where that is the most profitable, and holds the highest social status. Because if we don't, in a world-wide economy other nations will, and that is where the investor money is going to move, and the invention, and the massive wealth.
JayATee
09-01-2009, 05:01 PM
...what? What does that mean?
That made no sense whatsoever. And I'm getting really sick of these weird fictional scenarios people keep using when talking about Obama. Like calling him Hitler if the proposed health care reform goes through. Or this one you've come up with. You think McCain and Palin would be doing a better job? Really? Or Bush? Come on. The Republicans had their eight years in office and fucked things all to shit. The Democrats haven't even had a year and you're all freaking out. Shut up and be patient. It takes more than a year to fix eight years' worth of mistakes.
Thank you!! I mean my god!! 7 months and people are losing their fucking heads! It's absurd.
yoda57us
09-01-2009, 05:20 PM
Thank you!! I mean my god!! 7 months and people are losing their fucking heads! It's absurd.
:thanx:
hockeybobby
09-01-2009, 05:48 PM
I'm still looking for one thing he has done right since taking office. And I've looked hard.
You aren't looking hard. If he does nothing else, ending the war in Iraq will be enough for me to tip my hat. Boosting the US presence in Afghanistan is the right thing to do as well. Canadians are thankful of this. There you go...there's two things.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index_campaign.php
bem401
09-02-2009, 05:20 AM
Boosting the US presence in Afghanistan is the right thing to do as well. Canadians are thankful of this. There you go...there's two things.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index_campaign.php
Why is boosting our presence there the right thing to do? I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just asking why? To the best of my knowledge, there is no stated objective, no end game. Our troops have their hands tied behind their backs by the current military policy. They can't fire until fired upon and have to give Miranda warnings to captured enemy combatants. Thats no way to conduct a war.
Why should the Canadians be our concern? You folks are free to like or dislike what we do, but your feelings should be secondary to us.
Your link is hardly a reliable source of objective information, HB. Its his propaganda site.
Seven months is not a long time but the damage he's done and proposes to do will be felt for generations.
firemaiden04
09-02-2009, 05:44 AM
Seven months is not a long time but the damage he's done and proposes to do will be felt for generations.
...as opposed to the damage Bush has done. Seven months, dude. Give it a rest. Seriously. He hasn't done anything but try to fix Bush's major fuck-ups. Let it go. We put up with a moron in the office for eight long, long years. It takes a long time to fix that kind of shit. Seven months isn't going to do it. But frankly, I think that even if he did a phenomenal job, you wouldn't be able to see it or admit it. So, I don't really know why I bother.
bem401
09-02-2009, 06:02 AM
...as opposed to the damage Bush has done. Seven months, dude. Give it a rest. Seriously. He hasn't done anything but try to fix Bush's major fuck-ups. Let it go. We put up with a moron in the office for eight long, long years. It takes a long time to fix that kind of shit. Seven months isn't going to do it. But frankly, I think that even if he did a phenomenal job, you wouldn't be able to see it or admit it. So, I don't really know why I bother.
Once again with the Bush-bashing.
Bush started the country downward. Obama has taken what Bush started and put it on steroids.
He's weakened us militarily. He's weakened homeland security ( arguably Bush's one success ). His defecit for this year is greater than the sum of all Bush's defecits. He wants to increase government control over industry and over peoples' lives. He's appointed 21 czars ( czars? this is America ) Some of these czars are avowed communists. He's befriended our enemies and alienated our allies. The list goes on. Seriously, the only response you get from his supporters when you criticize him is accusations of racism or more bashing of Bush. Again, what's he done right so far, other than not be Bush?
My fear is if he's done this much damage in seven months, what will it like if he gets seven more years?
Fortunately, it appears America is waking up. His approval rating has shown the most precipitous drop of any president in the history of such polls, from 77% shortly aftere taking office to 42% as of yesterday (if I heard correctly and trending downward.
xdamage
09-02-2009, 07:55 AM
Not that it matters any now, too late, but FWIW many of us who worked before the tech-boom of the 90s knew that the huge amounts of investment money we were seeing being poured into the economy was unrealistically inflated. We were seeing endless numbers of companies buring far more money then they were or could bring in. And while this was fun times, it was evident early on that it was going to lead to companies and people putting themselves in massive debt believing that kind of money flow would never end (or more correctly, not caring since why not enjoy the good times now, let someone else eat the debt later?).
I don't blame Bush for the inevitable recession, and I'd actually love to see that venture capital money poured into our economy again (but that won't happen unless we are again leading the world in technical innovations),, but.. what I do blame his administration for is over stretching our resources at a time when we should have been hunkering down and preparing for a long winter.
Problem now is pretty much any action we take or don't is going to have painful consequences. A part of me thinks let it happen, feel the pain now and we will recover. A part of me thinks we can't afford to let the world's confidence in our nation be too deeply shaken (e.g., to see major industries in the USA collapse).
Like I said above, to me the way you fix the economy is deeply intertwined with how to bring investor money out of bank accounts and back into our economy, hopefully the next time with tighter controls over companies (the IPO stock market gambling game should not be repeated). If world-wide confidence in the USA is shaken too badly that probably won't happen for decades if ever.
But there are so many variables in economics... it is really hard to fix mistakes after the fact.
Dirty Ernie
09-02-2009, 08:23 AM
I'm still looking for one thing he has done right since taking office. And I've looked hard.
How about the $4billion in profit from the repayment of TARP fund so far? You should be happy there's now a little less debt on the backs of your precious little children and grandchildren now.
And since you believe everyone should be responsible for their own healthcare, I'm sure you must not belong to any leftie teachers' union and would never saddle your employer for the costs of your healthcare. ::)
JayATee
09-02-2009, 02:24 PM
Once again with the Bush-bashing.
Bush started the country downward. Obama has taken what Bush started and put it on steroids.
He's weakened us militarily. He's weakened homeland security ( arguably Bush's one success ). His defecit for this year is greater than the sum of all Bush's defecits. He wants to increase government control over industry and over peoples' lives. He's appointed 21 czars ( czars? this is America ) Some of these czars are avowed communists. He's befriended our enemies and alienated our allies. The list goes on. Seriously, the only response you get from his supporters when you criticize him is accusations of racism or more bashing of Bush. Again, what's he done right so far, other than not be Bush?
My fear is if he's done this much damage in seven months, what will it like if he gets seven more years?
Fortunately, it appears America is waking up. His approval rating has shown the most precipitous drop of any president in the history of such polls, from 77% shortly aftere taking office to 42% as of yesterday (if I heard correctly and trending downward.
Why is boosting our presence there the right thing to do? I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just asking why? To the best of my knowledge, there is no stated objective, no end game. Our troops have their hands tied behind their backs by the current military policy. They can't fire until fired upon and have to give Miranda warnings to captured enemy combatants. Thats no way to conduct a war.
Why should the Canadians be our concern? You folks are free to like or dislike what we do, but your feelings should be secondary to us.
Your link is hardly a reliable source of objective information, HB. Its his propaganda site.
Seven months is not a long time but the damage he's done and proposes to do will be felt for generations.
Yes, you're soooo much smarter than he is. Im sure you could fix ALL our problems without any difficulty or any disagreement from anyone.
And btw, it's at 53%. If you're going to regurgitate news articles, at least get it right. ::)
bem401
09-02-2009, 04:01 PM
How about the $4billion in profit from the repayment of TARP fund so far? You should be happy there's now a little less debt on the backs of your precious little children and grandchildren now.
And since you believe everyone should be responsible for their own healthcare, I'm sure you must not belong to any leftie teachers' union and would never saddle your employer for the costs of your healthcare. ::)
Do you mean this "profit"?
http://trueslant.com/matttaibi/2009/09/01/bailout-propaganda-begins/
My healthcare is part of my negotiated contract. I have no control over it, nor am I able to not belong to the union. if i were given the choice, I'd prefer not to belong to the pension ( it sucks ) nor the health care ( provided they compensated me for its cost ). More often than not, I disagree with my union. BTW, I co-pay an amount equivalent to what professionals in the business world generally co-pay.
bem401
09-02-2009, 04:04 PM
Yes, you're soooo much smarter than he is. Im sure you could fix ALL our problems without any difficulty or any disagreement from anyone.
And btw, it's at 53%. If you're going to regurgitate news articles, at least get it right. ::)
Never said I was soooo much smarter than him. I didn't say I could fix the problems either. I merely said he was going about it the wrong way. Everything he is doing seems to be contrary to the best interests of the US.
And you are right, its his health care handling that gets him the 42%.
hockeybobby
09-02-2009, 04:30 PM
Why is boosting our presence there the right thing to do? I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just asking why? To the best of my knowledge, there is no stated objective, no end game. Our troops have their hands tied behind their backs by the current military policy. They can't fire until fired upon and have to give Miranda warnings to captured enemy combatants. Thats no way to conduct a war.
It's where the mess started bem. While the US was distracted in Iraq, fighting a war it didn't need to start, the Taliban and Al Quaida were regrouping and regaining strength in Afghanistan. Boosting the presence there gives us a chance to have a successful outcome...end the insurgency, and help those people rebuild their country.
Why should the Canadians be our concern? You folks are free to like or dislike what we do, but your feelings should be secondary to us.
We are your ally, in Afghanistan, and all things. We are your largest trading partner, our trading relationship is unique and unprecedented in the world. We are your friends. If WE don't care about each other, what does caring even mean?
Your link is hardly a reliable source of objective information, HB. Its his propaganda site.
Seven months is not a long time but the damage he's done and proposes to do will be felt for generations.
His website sets out his campaign pledges...what he said he'd do. He was elected on it, and he's doing what he said. That's also the right thing to do.
I frankly don't see the damage you are talking about. Give him a chance, and support him...he is your President.
yoda57us
09-02-2009, 04:37 PM
We are your ally, in Afghanistan, and all things. We are your largest trading partner, our trading relationship is unique and unprecedented in the world. We are your friends. If WE don't care about each other, what does caring even mean?
I frankly don't see the damage you are talking about. Give him a chance, and support him...he is your President.
Very well said HB.
bem401
09-02-2009, 04:53 PM
It's where the mess started bem. While the US was distracted in Iraq, fighting a war it didn't need to start, the Taliban and Al Quaida were regrouping and regaining strength in Afghanistan. Boosting the presence there gives us a chance to have a successful outcome...end the insurgency, and help those people rebuild their country.
What's the end game? And what will he do should he ever get his hands on Bin laden? And why are our forces being forced to fight with one hand behind their back, metaphorically speaking?
We are your ally, in Afghanistan, and all things. We are your largest trading partner, our trading relationship is unique and unprecedented in the world. We are your friends. If WE don't care about each other, what does caring even mean?
True, but our decisions have to be with what is in out best interest first and foremost. All other countries take a back seat.
His website sets out his campaign pledges...what he said he'd do. He was elected on it, and he's doing what he said. That's also the right thing to do.
I frankly don't see the damage you are talking about. Give him a chance, and support him...he is your President.
That's strictly about the war in Iraq. He said he'd withdraw and he is doing so. Only time will tell whether this was the right time for that move or not, for both this country and the people of Iraq. Funny how the people who were so opposed to the war in Iraq are silent on the war in Afghanistan. As far as damage, I disagree with his position on everything I can think of, from the economy to bailouts, to the health care to the green jobs, etc, etc, etc.
What I perceive as the damage he has done in seven months is breathtaking. And believe me HB, I realize all too well he is my president but I will not support him on domestic issues for that reason when I think he is wrong. What kind of support did Bush get during his 8 years from those that opposed him and his policies?
JayATee
09-02-2009, 04:54 PM
Never said I was soooo much smarter than him. I didn't say I could fix the problems either. I merely said he was going about it the wrong way. Everything he is doing seems to be contrary to the best interests of the US.
And you are right, its his health care handling that gets him the 42%.
LoL if you're saying he's doing it "wrong" obviously you do think you're smarter and that you do know better. ::)
bem401
09-02-2009, 05:02 PM
LoL if you're saying he's doing it "wrong" obviously you do think you're smarter and that you do know better. ::)
Well I do disagree with him and think his ideology is all wrong. It would be presumptuous of me to claim I am smarter since nobody has seen his transcripts, but my undergraduate degree is from an institution at least the equal of his.
hockeybobby
09-02-2009, 06:36 PM
What's the end game? And what will he do should he ever get his hands on Bin laden? And why are our forces being forced to fight with one hand behind their back, metaphorically speaking?
The end game is to bring Afghanistan back to a state of respected nationhood. It's important that Bin Laden be brought to justice...this needs no explanation. All armies fight with rules of engagement. This fight is no different, the support of the United Nations isn't carte blanche, and everyone is subject to the Geneva Conventions.
True, but our decisions have to be with what is in out best interest first and foremost. All other countries take a back seat.
I doubt there are many decisions made without considering what other countries may think, or how they will react. This is basic statesmanship.
Funny how the people who were so opposed to the war in Iraq are silent on the war in Afghanistan.
They really are two different things. The 9/11 attacks were directly attributable to Al Quaida and their Taliban benefactors in Afghanistan. The whole world was horrified by this attack. People of many nations perished in the twin towers, indeed, 25 Canadians died there. The United Nations and Nato support the war in Afghanistan. It is and was necessary. Ask anyone, not just a Canadian, if it's a just and necessary war, and your likely answer will be: war is shitty awful business, but we need to make the sacrifice in this case. Those people need our help, and Al Quaida and their Taliban protectors cannot be allowed to flourish there.
Iraq, I feel was unnecessary. This is not to in any way diminish or denigrate the courage and sacrifice of your young men and women there...let me say that clearly. My country could not support it...could not send our troops there to participate. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I don't know why that war happened, and it had nothing to do with Canada.
JayATee
09-03-2009, 01:03 AM
Well I do disagree with him and think his ideology is all wrong. It would be presumptuous of me to claim I am smarter since nobody has seen his transcripts, but my undergraduate degree is from an institution at least the equal of his.
None of this means anything. You didn't run for president did you? I doubt you'd be faring better even if you had. ::)
princessjas
09-03-2009, 03:39 AM
Iraq, I feel was unnecessary. This is not to in any way diminish or denigrate the courage and sacrifice of your young men and women there...let me say that clearly. My country could not support it...could not send our troops there to participate. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I don't know why that war happened, and it had nothing to do with Canada.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with Saddam's 1993 plot to assasinate Bush's daddy. Yep, nothing at all.
(If I got the year wrong, forgive me...talking about the plot during his Kuwaiti visit.)