Politics - 2 August 2007

...in the style of Argentine governments that Bush Sr. advised?

Exactly how evil are these guys, and when do we find out?

2007-08-02 13:18:36 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

For those of you who get on here and whine about how bad the economy is, here are some points which you are more than welcome to argue. The catch is, I have cited all othese facts so you also must have valid CREDIBLE sources or I don't want to hear it.

First of all the Dow Jones Industrial Average has broken its own record 3 times in the last two years. - Fact. Pay attention to the news.

Unemployment rate is the lowest that it has been in 30 years at 4.9% (down from 10.9% during the Carter administration.)*

Inflation in the U.S. is currently hovering at about 2.5%. The lowest it has been since Ronald Regan was President.*

Real Estate prices are the lowest they have been since the late 1950's taking into account the relative inflation of the economy. - Wall Street Journal

A higher percentage of employers now more than EVER are paying above minimum wage by an average of about $2.09.*

*= U.S. Department of Labor / Bureau of Labor Statistics

2007-08-02 13:10:49 · 20 answers · asked by Voice of Liberty 5

Rush Killing AirHead America

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

I Like Michael Medved to!

2007-08-02 13:07:02 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-02 13:03:40 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

a) George Bush, who failed to spend enough of everyone else's money on a failing bridge within one state.

b) George Bush, who deliberately made the bridge collapse because he hates people who talk with accents from the movie Fargo.

c) George Bush, because he caused global warming, which must have had something to do with the bridge's collapse.

2007-08-02 13:01:02 · 19 answers · asked by truthisback 3

Nothing became of it. Just like most liberal ideas, wait long enough and it fades away. 20 years ago it was global cooling.

2007-08-02 12:52:55 · 20 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

I am just wondering if its ok to threaten the world with an army if you do not get all the oil you want at the price you are willing to pay .
Since we can not supply our own needs in this country is it fair to go about the world taking what we want .

Its sad that we resort to violence when ever things do not go as we want them to.

In Panama a general fell out of favor when he refused to invade his neighbor .

In Venezuela the elected leader faces the real threat that America will assassinate him .

Other leaders around the world who have become billionaires start to think they can do as they please and that is the end of them .

I think we should come right out and admit that taking whatever it is we want is the way things are going to be and forget all this negotiation and bribery of local leaders and state officials to get what we want .


I like the, take what we want, or else plan and every American should stand behind this program thats worked for two hundred years .

2007-08-02 12:51:26 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Obama cleverly outed the Bush administrations plan of bombing some village in Pakistan and claiming they have killed OBL.......

How much more skullduggery can they come up with?

2007-08-02 12:51:22 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

When it was inconvenient for Cheney to be part of the executive branch, he suddenly became part of the legislative branch. So now how is he going to play the "executive privilege" card?

2007-08-02 12:49:32 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

by a toothles, clawles, grizzly bear that all it can do is growl?!!!

2007-08-02 12:47:11 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iM7MR5_v47w&mode=related&search=

2007-08-02 12:46:17 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

and increasingly Alex Jones, Michael Moore and all the other truth tellers are becoming mainstream.

2007-08-02 12:39:19 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-02 12:38:28 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

If you look at Mt. Rushmore, can you pick out the career politician? You probably can't because Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln all had careers that they left to briefly serve the people. It wasn't too long ago that the ideal for politics was to have a business, build it then leave that company for a couple of years while you served as Congressman or Senator and then return. That was because who better than a farmer would know what a farm bill would impact? Who better than a beat cop could tell you why a crime needs to be punished with 5 years?

With the rise of the career politician, suddenly government became insulated. You also start seeing people using their position more for political gain. You see bribery scandals from both parties. You see sex scandals from both parties. And the one universal fact is that the people abusing power are career politicians.

So my question: Are we as a country best served by person who is a career politician?

2007-08-02 12:35:03 · 16 answers · asked by Deep Thought 5

2007-08-02 12:27:19 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-02 12:26:17 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-02 12:25:35 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Or is it every man, woman, and child for themselves?

2007-08-02 12:24:30 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

The all of the recalls from china (e.g. toothpaste with antifreeze, children toys that contains lead in the paint, Chinese food with glutens in it.....) are they trying to kill us one by one.

2007-08-02 12:18:00 · 5 answers · asked by Penny 1

2007-08-02 12:17:12 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Individual Freedom vs. Government Control

Congress faces a critical question this week: Will U.S. health care be government-run, or will Americans be given the freedom to obtain their insurance plans and medical care from private firms? The next U.S. president will likely answer this question, but the resolution to the current debate about SCHIP — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state and federal government partnership for insuring poor children — that is roiling Washington, D.C., will preview the answer.

Although health care is a crucial issue for the electorate; traditionally, presidential candidates have avoided any but the blandest generalities. Health care is the third rail of politics. Its complexity, size, and multiple, committed stakeholders scare away most would-be saviors.

Yet, the underlying debate is simple: It is all about who will manage and control the health-care sector that comprises one-seventh of our economy. Will individual Americans have the freedom to make their own choices? Or, will we trust government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians to make those decisions for them? Our future health-care system will be shaped by how we answer these simple questions.

Let’s be clear: The SCHIP battle is not about whether to insure poor children. The debate is about how to insure them: Via the government or private insurers? This debate has not only pitted Democrats against Republicans but has also sundered the Republican coalition. Some Democrats wanted SCHIP expanded by $50 billion dollars so that even families earning about $81,000 a year who have eligible children were included. (The 2005 U.S. median household income was $46,000.) A resolution with the Republicans who hold minority leadership roles led to a compromise, costing only $35 billion, which allowed coverage for those earning up to $60,000.

A fundamental problem with this compromise is that the same amount of coverage for children within SCHIP costs $1,000 more per child than under private insurance. A group of forward-thinking Republicans led by U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and others has an entirely different idea of how to provide insurance: they want to cash out eligible people and enable them to use this money to buy health insurance from private insurers in a tax-protected way. Count the president in too. He has pledged to veto legislation that permits expansion of the present program.

None of the combatants’ are supported by an unblemished array of evidence. The Democrats support the expansion of SCHIP by lauding the universal coverage and substantially lower costs of single-payer, government-run systems, like the U.K.’s and Canada’s. Yes; but costs are controlled by rationing health care to the sick. More than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S. Onerous waiting lists have caused illegal, for-profit health-service centers to proliferate in Canada. These rogue establishments are so well-accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association. Nor do single-payer systems achieve equality of access or health status — the powerful, assertive, litigious, and connected go to the head of the line.



In the U.S., the government-controlled Medicaid program has achieved its low costs per person by stringent limits on provider prices. As many as 40 percent of doctors refuse to see Medicaid enrollees, leading to reduced health care quality. Physicians who accept Medicaid often shift their un-reimbursed costs to the privately insured. A system totally paid by the government would shut down this escape hatch, exacerbating the current shortage of primary care doctors.

But the group of Republicans who support private insurance acknowledge that they cannot laud health insurance as a model industry. The massive bureaucracies patients all-too-often encounter when they attempt to obtain the medical services they paid for are not merely frustrating, they sometimes kill. Free-market Republicans claim that the problem with the U.S. insurance firms arises from their lack of accountability. Agents, such as governments and employers, use our money to buy health plans. The agents’ incentives — simplicity and cost control — are not well aligned with our needs for responsiveness.

Senators Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and others want to refigure the tax code so that we could buy health insurance with tax-sheltered money, a right currently reserved solely for our employers. If we purchased our own health insurance with tax-protected funds, we could keep these arrogant behemoths in check, just as we do in the other sectors of the American economy. The Swiss universal-coverage, consumer-driven system requires people, not employers or governments, to buy health insurance. (The poor primarily receive funds to purchase insurance just like everybody else.) This consumer control enables the Swiss to enjoy an excellent quality of care without the social inequality of single-payer countries at costs that are a third lower than ours.

SCHIP is not merely a debate about yet another mystifying government program. It is all about free-market principles versus government mandates. Giving taxpayers the freedom to choose and buy their own health care would unleash powerful market forces that have been subdued by third-party bureaucracies for the last 60 years. In every area of our economy, market forces have transformed rare, costly products and services like cars and computers into common products and services. We can make health care cheaper, better, and more widely available, if Congress can muster the vision and courage to act.

2007-08-02 12:13:24 · 5 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

When none such event ever happened? I'm sick and tired of this awful myth. One news person in the US hinted that the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada... and then publicly admitted he was wrong. But I guess perception is reality right? You speak of the "threat" coming from here...when you have absolutley no justification for making suck claims. It's based on dishonest men speaking lies becuase they can't handle the responsibility for the greatest security fiasco in US history. Stop blaming us for your mistakes, and take responsiblilty yourselves.

2007-08-02 12:08:16 · 9 answers · asked by MattH 6

Hillary vs. Rudy on health care, is Hillary crazy

Today’s health-care debate previews the fall 2008 election, if today’s presidential frontrunners win their respective party nominations. Senator Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R., N.Y.) are promoting reforms that contrast like midnight and high noon.
As Clinton cheers, Congress moves to reauthorize the State Child Health Insurance Program. Launched modestly in 1997, SCHIP was targeted at kids whose families were too prosperous for Medicaid, but too poor for private coverage. Like nearly every federal scheme, SCHIP is metastasizing. Clinton, her Democratic comrades, and some weak-kneed Republican appeasers are widening SCHIP into a self-contradictory contraption, complete with a tax hike and a fiscal blunderbuss.

“It is one of our most important national priorities to cover all Americans, and that should start now with all of our children,” Clinton said July 16. Of course, it depends on what the meaning of the word “children” is. Washington already lets 14 states cover 670,000 “boys” and “girls,” up to age 25, some of whom have been drinking legally for four years and voting for seven. Ninety-two percent of Minnesota’s SCHIP budget insures adults.

Clinton’s proposal, like the House Democrats’ bill, would cover children in families up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL), double today’s target. Thus, a family of four making $82,600 could receive federal-government medicine. Meanwhile — the Heritage Foundation’s Rea Hederman estimates — 70,000 “American families are both poor and high-income — simultaneously.” They qualify for SCHIP and the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Madder still, 77 percent of children between double and triple FPL and 89 percent between 300 and 400 percent of FPL already have private health insurance, notes Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon. Nonetheless, the Democratic House Wednesday night approved $47 billion for SCHIP through 2012, 88 percent above its current $25 billion, five-year budget.

Senate Democrats would fund this extravaganza via a 156 percent cigarette-tax hike — from 39 cents to $1 per pack. Heritage forecasts that 22 million new smokers would have to light up by 2017 to keep SCHIP afloat. So, SCHIP promises to improve children’s health while exploiting adult tobacco addiction. And if those smokers never materialize, future Congresses simply will invoice smoke-free taxpayers.

“The Left is pretty blatant about this being their vehicle to move to universal coverage,” one health-policy expert told me. “Make kids think you get health insurance from the government, and in less than a generation, you’re there.”

While Democrats and some lily-livered Republicans ceaselessly invoke “the children” to impose government medicine, Giuliani does the reverse. His just-unveiled health plan rejects public entitlements and tax hikes and embraces private property and tax incentives to extend health coverage overall — beyond just kids.

“America’s health-care system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates and wasteful, unaccountable bureaucracy,” Giuliani told New Hampshire voters Tuesday. “To reform, we must empower all Americans by increasing health-care choices and affordability, while bringing accountability to the system.”

Giuliani specifically would grant uninsured families $15,000 tax exemptions, and singles $7,500, to help them buy private coverage that they, not their bosses, would own, control, and transport throughout their careers — much like car, home, and life insurance. Funds remaining after insurance purchases could be deposited tax-free into Health Savings Accounts for routine medical expenses.

He also would let Americans acquire health plans across state lines, as they now do with non-medical insurance. For instance, unmarried New Yorkers, who now must buy such unneeded mandatory benefits as in-vitro fertilization, would be free to secure no-frills plans from insurers in, say, mandate-light Ohio.

Giuliani also would curb malpractice costs by capping lawsuit damages and requiring frivolous plaintiffs to cover victorious doctors’ legal bills.

“If a person gets injured, he should be compensated, but he shouldn’t get the brass ring or win the lottery,” Giuliani explained.

Unlike President Bush, whose happy talk fuels Leftist disdain, Giuliani describes Democrats’ ideas with bracing candor. He calls their health proposals “heavily influenced by Marxism.”

“We’ve got to solve our health-care problems with American principles, not the principles of socialism,” Giuliani says. “I know Democrats will say this is unfair, I know they’ll squeal…But I am a realist. I face reality, which is: If you take more people and have government cover them, it’s called socialized medicine.”

2007-08-02 12:07:41 · 5 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

The Senate sent Bush a bill Thursday to make lawmakers pay for private plane rides & disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects & raise money from lobbyists.

Democrats, however, hailed the 83-14 Senate vote as proof they are fulfilling their 2006 campaign promise to crack down on lobbying abuses,

The bill would require senators, & candidates for the Senate or White House, to pay full charter rates for trips on noncommercial planes. House members & candidates would be barred from accepting trips on private planes.

The final vote was 83-14

Are you surprised that all 14 senators
who voted against the bill were Republicans?

Or are you more surprised that
GOP Sen. Ted Stevens was one of the 14 voting against
the bill to disclose the facts of each earmark, etc?

2007-08-02 12:04:45 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

And as a follow up, Did you vote for John Kerry and Al Gore?

(Again, not a big Bush supporter - Just don't like hypocrits)

Gore got into Harvard because his father was a prominent U.S. senator.

Gore continued his mediocre performance at Harvard, ranking in the bottom fifth of the class for his first two years. In his sophomore year, the Post reports: "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale."

Gore could not complete either divinity school or law school at Vanderbilt, failing five of the eight classes he took in his three semesters at divinity school. Exactly how many classes do you have to fail to be called dumb, if you're a Democrat?

Meanwhile, the “Dumb Guy” was earning his MBA from Harvard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

2007-08-02 12:04:40 · 14 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4

I don´t believe in CNN anymore, but they are always saying that Brazil is a dictatorship. I had to vote a lot of times last year...

2007-08-02 11:51:59 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

that's a good enough reason not to vote for clinton, in my book. the bushes for twelve, bill for eight... i don't think i could handle more of the same. i'd like to see some fresh blood, personally. is anyone else a little bothered by this prospect (assuming you were considering clinton in the first place)?

2007-08-02 11:45:00 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am not a big Bush supporter but I think the man deserves a break.

AWOL means prison time not an Honorable Discharge that bush recieved. If the military had a problem with Bush they would have charged him or repremanded him. They did not. If his employer, the United States military, did not have a problem with Bush then why do you?

Please - No DADDY responces. "Bush's daddy this, Bush's daddy that." When you use this line of reasoning it looks plain silly because you can't prove it. I can prove that he got an Honorable discharge. Anybody can look that up! You have to go to the conspiracy web sites to get "info" on Bush being AWOL.

Also RIGHTIES, Kerry deserved his medals that he got in Vietnam. How do I know? Because the US Military said he did. Just like they said Bush served Honorably.

Please stop with the nonsense that you can't prove. Let's stick with things we can!

2007-08-02 11:41:49 · 20 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4

When I bring up Clinton, a common answer I get is that its old news. But libs bring up Reagan all the time. Which way do you want it? Oh I forgot libs like it both ways. Hypocrites.

2007-08-02 11:41:23 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table, and extending their feud over whether Obama has enough experience to be elected president in November 2008.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070802/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc

Which of the two do you agree with on this issue?

2007-08-02 11:41:02 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7